Circulating angiopoietins-1 and -2, angiopoietin receptor Tie-2 and vascular endothelial growth factor-A as biomarkers of acute myocardial infarction: a prospective nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is up-regulated in myocardial ischemia. However, limited data exist assessing the value of circulating angiogenic biomarkers in predicting future incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Our aim was to examine the association between circulating levels of markers of angiogenesis with risk of incident acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in men and women. METHODS: We performed a case-control study (nested within a large cohort of persons receiving care within Kaiser Permanente of Northern California) including 695 AMI cases and 690 controls individually matched on age, gender and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Median [inter-quartile range] serum concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A; 260 [252] vs. 235 [224] pg/mL; p = 0.01) and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2; 1.18 [0.66] vs. 1.05 [0.58] ng/mL; p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in AMI cases than in controls. By contrast, endothelium-specific receptor tyrosine kinase (Tie-2; 14.2 [3.7] vs. 14.0 [3.1] ng/mL; p = 0.07) and angiopoietin-1 levels (Ang-1; 33.1 [13.6] vs. 32.5 [12.7] ng/mL; p = 0.52) did not differ significantly by case-control status. After adjustment for educational attainment, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, LDL-C, HDL-C, triglycerides and C-reactive protein, each increment of 1 unit of Ang-2 as a Z score was associated with 1.17-fold (95 percent confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.35) increased odds of AMI, and the upper quartile of Ang-2, relative to the lowest quartile, was associated with 1.63-fold (95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 2.45) increased odds of AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support a role of Ang-2 as a biomarker of incident AMI independent of traditional risk factors.

Testing strategy to identify cases of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and to project HCV incidence rates.

Surveillance for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is limited by the challenge of differentiating between acute and chronic infections. In this study, we evaluate a cross-sectional testing strategy that identifies individuals with acute HCV infection and we estimate HCV incidence. Anti-HCV-negative persons from four populations with various risks, i.e., blood donors, Veterans Administration (VA) patients, young injection drug users (IDU), and older IDU, were screened for HCV RNA by minipool or individual sample nucleic acid testing (NAT). The number of detected viremic seronegative infections was combined with the duration of the preseroconversion NAT-positive window period (derived from analysis of frequent serial samples from plasma donors followed from NAT detection to seroconversion) to estimate annual HCV incidence rates. Projected incidence rates were compared to observed incidence rates. Projected HCV incidence rates per 100 person-years were 0.0042 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.0025 to 0.007) for blood donors, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.71) for VA patients, 39.8 (95% CI, 25.9 to 53.7) for young IDU, and 53.7 (95% CI, 23.4 to 108.8) for older IDU. Projected rates were most similar to observed incidence rates for young IDU (33.4; 95% CI, 28.0 to 39.9). This study demonstrates the value of applying a cross-sectional screening strategy to detect acute HCV infections and to estimate HCV incidence.

Seroreversion in subjects receiving antiretroviral therapy during acute/early HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: We assessed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody seroreversion among individuals initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) during acute/early HIV infection and determined whether seroreversion was associated with loss of cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. METHODS: Subjects in a cohort with acute/early HIV infection (<12 months into infection) who initiated ART within 28 days after study entry and maintained HIV type 1 ribonucleic acid levels of < or =500 copies/mL for >24 weeks were selected. Two clinically available second-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) and a confirmatory Western blot were used to screen subjects for antibody reversion. Those with negative screening test results underwent additional antibody testing, including a third-generation EIA, and were assessed for cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. RESULTS: Of 87 subjects identified, 12 (14%) had negative antibody test results at the start of ART; all 12 had seroconversion, although 1 had seroconversion only on a third-generation EIA. Of the 87 subjects, 6 (7%) had seroreversion on at least 1 EIA antibody assay while receiving ART during a median follow-up of 90 weeks. The only clinical predictor of seroreversion was a low baseline "detuned" (less sensitive) antibody. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses to HIV Gag peptides were detected in 4 of 5 subjects with seroreversion who could be tested. All 5 who had seroreversion who stopped ART experienced virologic rebound and antibody evolution. CONCLUSIONS: HIV antibody seroconversion on second-generation EIA antibody tests may fail to occur when ART is initiated early. Seroreversion was not uncommon among subjects treated early, although cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses to HIV antigens remained detectable in most subjects. Antibody seroreversion did not indicate viral eradication. A third-generation EIA was the most sensitive test for HIV antibodies.

HCV viral load in anti-HCV-reactive donors and infectivity for their recipients.

BACKGROUND: An attempt has been made to determine the minimum level of HCV nucleic acid in donors associated with infection of recipients. This is important for considerations about assay sensitivity, use of minipool versus single-donation testing, and continued use of serologic testing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 5387 specimens from the Transfusion-Transmitted Viruses Study in the 1970s were screened for antibody to HCV (anti-HCV). The outcome in recipients of seroreactive donations was examined for viremia and seroconversion. Present techniques for both groups included third-generation EIA, RIBA, quantitative RT-PCR assay, and transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay. RESULTS: A total of 156 recipients of components from 180 anti-HCV-reactive donors were identified. One-hundred seven of these were HCV-naïve before transfusion and received a single, confirmed seropositive unit; 94 (88%) became infected. Eighty-five recipients had donors whose HCV RNA level was quantifiable by RT-PCR (range, 182-3,310,000 copies/mL). Eighty-three (98%) seroconverted. Of the remaining 22, a total of 10 received units positive for HCV RNA detected only by TMA; all 10 recipients seroconverted. Of the remaining 12 recipients of anti-HCV+, TMA-negative units, 1 recipient seroconverted. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of transmission were seen at all levels of viremia, and one donor transmitted with undetectable levels in the TMA assay. Current HCV RNA testing will therefore not interdict all infectious units, even with single-donation testing, and serologic screening must be continued.

Impact of HCV 3.0 EIA relative to HCV 2.0 EIA on blood-donor screening.

BACKGROUND: In 1996, the Ortho HCV Version 3.0 ELISA Test System (HCV 3.0 EIA) was licensed in the United States for donor screening but was neither mandated nor universally implemented. Data from two studies comparing the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA and HCV 2.0 EIA are presented. The first study evaluated the differential performance in a cross-section of screened whole-blood donors after implementation of HCV 3.0 EIA; the second study evaluated the differential performance of HCV 3.0 EIA in plasma donors acutely infected with HCV, identified during routine Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA and HCV NAT (using Roche Ampliscreen plate assay) donor screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The first study evaluated HCV 3.0 EIA repeat-reactive donations from four US blood centers, identified during the first 5 months of HCV 3.0 EIA implementation. HCV EIA repeat-reactive donations confirmed by RIBA HCV 3.0 SIA were retested using both Ortho HCV Version 2.0 ELISA Test System and Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA. All EIA-discordant donations were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In the second study, Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA-nonreactive, HCV PCR-positive donors were enrolled in a follow-up study in which the index and follow-up samples were re-evaluated by HCV 3.0 EIA. RESULTS: In the first study, of 292,459 donations, 501 (0.17%) confirmed HCV 3.0 EIA-reactive donations were identified; 15 (0.005%) were nonreactive by Ortho HCV 2.0 EIA and were all HCV RNA negative. In the second study, Ortho HCV 3.0 EIA retesting of Abbott HCV 2.0 EIA-nonreactive, RNA-positive index donations identified 16 (23%) as 3.0 EIA reactive. In 42 panels with a discordant time of seroconversion, HCV 3.0 EIA sero-conversion preceded HCV 2.0 EIA in all cases (p < 0.001). Two donors with HCV 3.0 EIA-reactive index donations never seroconverted by HCV 2.0 EIA during 160 to 180 days of follow-up. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate that HCV 3.0 EIA compared to HCV 2.0 EIA can better detect 1) remote nonviremic HCV infections, 2) acute infection, and 3) HCV antibodies in cases of atypical seroconversion.