Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, April 2003, p. 1788-1790, Vol. 41, No. 4
0095-1137/03/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.41.4.1788-1790.2003
Copyright © 2003, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Department of Clinical Virology,1 the Blood Bank, Christian Medical College, Vellore 632 004, Tamil Nadu, India2
Received 4 December 2001/ Returned for modification 4 August 2002/ Accepted 3 November 2002
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Though the phenomenon of the occurrence of false positives during HCV-Ab testing is well known (2), in developing countries like India where only 39% of blood donations are voluntary (5), every effort should be made to prevent false labeling of volunteer blood donors (VBDs). Based on this pilot study, which examined the rate of confirmation of HCV-Ab positivity in a blood bank setting, we propose a simple algorithm for on-site counseling and follow-up for donors in blood banks.
Of 14,128 VBDs tested at the Blood Bank at the Christian Medical College in south India between February 1998 and December 1998, 110 (0.77%) tested positive for HCV-Ab. For the purposes of this study, blood samples from VBDs that tested positive were sent for further evaluation to the clinical virology laboratory. Of the 110 serum samples, 51 with adequate volume were used for further testing. The blood bank currently uses Abbott HCV enzyme immunoassay (EIA) 3.0 (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill.). This is a third-generation assay for the qualitative detection of antibodies to the core, NS3, NS4, and NS5 antigens of HCV. Currently, in this blood bank, all units are tested singly and HCV-Ab-positive units are summarily rejected with no further repeat testing. For this study, such HCV-Ab-positive samples were sent to the clinical virology laboratory for further testing. In the laboratory, serum samples were aliquoted and stored at 4°C for testing in a second EIA, UBI HCV EIA 3.0 (United Biomedicals, Inc.), and a microparticle EIA (MEIA), Axsym HCV version 3.0 (Abbott Laboratories). Additional aliquots were stored at -20°C for immunoblot or line immunoassay (LIA) testing. As samples collected from the blood bank were not appropriate for RNA testing, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) testing could not be performed. One of the two kinds of assays, LIA (INNO-LIA HCV Ab III; Innogenetics, Zwijndrecht, Belgium) or immunoblot (HCV BLOT 3.0; Genelabs Diagnostics Pte. Ltd., Singapore), was used as the confirmatory antibody test.
All UBI EIAs, Axsym MEIAs, immunoblotting, and LIAs were performed and interpreted strictly according to the manufacturers' instructions. HCV-Ab reactivity in the Axsym MEIA is expressed as a ratio of the sample absorbance value to the calculated cutoff value for each sample. For purposes of comparison, a similar ratio, which we call the index of reactivity (IR), was computed for the UBI EIA: IR = sample absorbance value/cutoff absorbance value.
The cutoff absorbance value for the UBI EIA was calculated by using a formula supplied by the kit's manufacturer. For UBI EIA, an IR value was calculated and when this value was
2, we took it to indicate a high positive. An IR value of
10 was taken to indicate the same in an Axsym MEIA.
Of the 51 positive samples from the blood bank, 11 (21.5%) were positive both in UBI EIA or Axsym MEIA and in the confirmatory immunoblot test or LIA. All 11 samples could be classified as high positives based on their IR values. Twenty-three samples (45%) tested negative both in the UBI EIA or Axsym MEIA and in the immunoblot test or LIA. An additional five samples were negative by immunoblotting or LIA but positive in UBI EIA (n = 1) or Axsym MEIA (n = 4). Among these five samples, the IR was >2 for the single UBI EIA positive sample but the IR values were always <10 for the four samples positive by Axsym MEIA. Twelve samples (23.5%) gave indeterminate results with immunoblotting or LIA. Nine of these 12 indeterminate samples (75%) were negative by both UBI EIA and Axsym MEIA (Table 1). Among the three remaining samples that tested positive by either UBI EIA (n = 2) or Axsym MEIA (n = 1), the IR values were >2 for both of the UBI EIA positive samples but <10 for the Axsym MEIA positive sample.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Comparison of the performance of UBI EIA and Axsym MEIA with that of immunoblotting and LIA for 51 volunteer blood donor samples positive for HCV-Ab by Abbott HCV EIA 3.0
|
Forty-five percent of the positive donor samples from the blood bank tested negative both in UBI EIA or Axsym MEIA and in the confirmatory immunoblotting or LIA. This could possibly be explained by the multiplicity of intercurrent infections seen in tropical countries that lead to hyperglobulinemia, contributing to false positivity in certain HCV-Ab assays, as has been suggested previously (8). The majority (75%) of samples showing indeterminate results with LIA or immunoblotting were negative in both the UBI EIA and the Axsym MEIA. Since no "gold standard" exists for HCV-Ab testing, the issue of infectivity of these samples could have been resolved only with longitudinal follow-up of these donors by using additional tests such as HCV RT-PCR and liver enzyme estimations.
Based on these findings, we suggest the following algorithm for HCV-Ab screening in blood banks (Fig. 1). If a VBD tests positive in a screening assay, he or she should be appropriately counseled in the blood bank about (i) the high rates of false positivity seen in such situations and (ii) the importance of an alternate screening and confirmatory testing in a referral or specialized laboratory. In the event of a donor testing positive in the second EIA, he or she should be directed to a hepatologist for further management, including supplementary HCV-Ab testing and HCV RNA testing.
![]() View larger version (27K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Recommended algorithm for screening of VBDs in blood banks.
|
It is known, however, that an infected individual may test negative for HCV RNA because of either low viral load (4) or suboptimal amplification in the RT-PCR due to PCR inhibitors (1). In such a scenario, it is recommended that the donor wait for a minimum period of 3 months before attempting to donate again.
For samples showing discrepancy between the results from immunoblotting or LIA and those from UBI EIA or Axsym MEIA, the IR values were high (>2) for the UBI EIA but always <10 for the Axsym MEIA. This is in contrast to a previous report (3) which suggested that a high positive in an EIA would very likely be confirmed in the recombinant immunoblot assay.
Among samples that tested positive both in the UBI EIA or Axsym-MEIA and in the immunoblot test or LIA (n = 11), antibody reactivities to the core antigen were found to be the highest, as has been reported previously (6, 9). NS5 antigen lines were the next highest in intensity. The strong immunogenicity of the NS5 antigen reinforces the importance of using third-generation assays for screening.
In conclusion, this study reveals a high degree of false positivity associated with screening for HCV-Ab among VBDs in an Indian blood bank. The number of samples that tested positive in confirmatory immunoblot tests or LIAs was small. To minimize wastage of otherwise safe units of blood, especially those belonging to rare blood groups, and anxiety to VBDs, the importance of a second EIA and confirmatory testing by immunoblotting or LIA and/or RT-PCR is reiterated. Additionally, counseling of all VBDs who test positive for HCV-Ab at blood banks must be advocated.
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»