Sensitivity of Second-Generation Enzyme Immunoassay for Detection of Hepatitis C Virus Infection among Oncology Patients

Background: The second-generation hepatitis C virus (HCV) enzyme immunoassay (EIA 2), an antibody-detection test, has high sensitivity and is one of the recommended screening tests for detecting HCV infection in the United States. However, its sensitivity among oncology patients is unknown. Objective: Assess the EIA 2 sensitivity among a group of oncology patients at a Nebraska clinic where an HCV outbreak occurred during 2000–2001 using nucleic acid testing (NAT) and recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) as the gold standards. Study design: Serum specimens were collected from patients 16 months after transmission had stopped. We tested the specimens using EIA 2 (Abbott HCV EIA 2.0), a NAT assay based on transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) (Gen-Probe TMA assay) and RIBA (Chiron RIBA® HCV 3.0 SIA). HCV infection was defined as a positive RIBA or TMA test in an oncology patient. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were determined in EIA 2-negative/TMA-positive samples. Results: A total of 264 samples were included in the study.We identified 92 HCV infections, 76 of which were Abbott EIA 2 positive. Abbott EIA 2 sensitivity was 83% (76/92), lower than that reported among healthy adults (90%) (p = 0.01) and poor sensitivity was associated with receipt of chemotherapy during the outbreak period (p = 0.02). Only 1 (6%) of the 16 EIA 2-negative cases had elevated ALT. Conclusions: In this study, EIA 2 sensitivity among oncology patients was lower than that previously reported among immunocompetent persons. Impaired antibody production related to cancer and/or chemotherapy might explain the reduced sensitivity. These findings indicate that, when assessing HCV status in oncology patients, a NAT test should be routinely considered in addition to EIA

Significant Closure of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Hepatitis C Virus Preseroconversion Detection Windows with a Transcription-Mediated-Amplification-Driven Assay

While the present generation of serology-based assays has significantly decreased the number of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections acquired by transfusion, the possibility of infected donations escaping detection still exists. The average seronegative viremic window duration during which immunological assays are unable to detect the virus is estimated to be between 16 and 22 days for HIV-1 and approximately 70 days for HCV. Significant reduction of detection window duration was demonstrated using a nucleic acid amplification assay, the Procleix HIV-1/HCV Assay, which utilizes transcription-mediated amplification technology to simultaneously detect HIV-1 and HCV RNAs. For 26 commercially available HIV-1 seroconversion panels tested, specimens were reactive in the HIV-1/HCV assay at the same time as or earlier than in serological assays. Overall, the HIV-1/HCV assay was able to reduce the detection window duration by an average of 14 days and 6 days compared to tests relying on recognition of HIV-1 antibody and p24 antigen, respectively. For 24 commercially available HCV seroconversion panels tested, the specimens were reactive in the HIV-1/HCV assay at an earlier blood sampling date than in serological assays, reducing the detection window duration by an average of 26 days. Similar results were obtained in testing the HIV-1 and HCV seroconversion panels in the virus-specific HIV-1- and HCV-discriminatory assays, respectively. In conclusion, the HIV-1/HCV assay and corresponding discriminatory assays significantly reduced detection window durations compared to immunoassays

Detection of cervical precancerous lesions with Aptima HPV assays using SurePath preservative fluid specimens

SurePath specimens from women referred to colposcopy were treated with Aptima Transfer Solution (ATS) before testing in Aptima HPV (AHPV) and Aptima HPV 16, 18/45 (AHPV-GT) assays. Untreated SurePath specimens were tested with the cobas HPV test. PreservCyt specimens were assessed for cytology and tested with AHPV. High-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesions served as the reference standard. Excellent agreement (95.5%; k=0.91) was observed for ATS-treated SurePath specimens between Tigris and Panther systems and between the PreservCyt and ATS-treated SurePath specimens (91.1%, k=0.81) with the AHPV assay on Tigris. Agreement between the AHPV and cobas assays with SurePath specimens was substantial (89.9%, k=0.80). AHPV sensitivity for CIN2+(n=147) was 91.2% for SurePath and PreservCyt. Cobas HPV sensitivity was 93.9% for SurePath specimens. AHPV testing of SurePath specimens was more specific (59.4%) than cobas (54.7%) (p<0.001). Detection and genotyping showed similar absolute and relative risks. ATS-treated SurePath specimens tested with AHPV and AHPV-GT assays showed similar performance with greater specificity than cobas HPV on SurePath specimens. Similar overall results were seen using a CIN3 disease endpoint. Keywords: Human papillomavirus, SurePath, PreservCyt, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN2+, Aptima transfer solution (ATS

High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Detection in Urine Samples From a Referral Population With Cervical Biopsy-Proven High-Grade Lesions

The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the HPV-HR test to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) in urine samples in comparison with a commercial molecular HPV test.The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the HPV-HR test to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) in urine samples in comparison with a commercial molecular HPV test. Materials and Methods This is a prospective study, in which 350 patients diagnosed previously with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher were enrolled. Urine and cervical specimens were collected. Urine was tested with the HPV-HR test and cervical specimens were tested with the Cobas. Results Of the 336 evaluable patients, there were 271 cases of CIN 2+, of which 202 were CIN 3+ and the remaining 65 patients were less than CIN 2. Positivity was 77.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.5–81.5) for the urine samples and 83.6% (95% CI = 79.6–87.6) for the cervical samples. Agreement between cervical and urine samples for HPV detection was 79.8% (κ = 0.363; 95% CI = 0.243–0.484). Sensitivity for CIN 2+ was 83.4% (95% CI = 78.4–87.6) for urine and 90.8% (95% CI = 86.7–92.9) for cervical samples. The sensitivity for CIN 3+ was 85.6% (95% CI = 80.0–90.2) for urine and 92.6% (95% CI = 88.0–95.8) for cervical samples. Specificity for worse than CIN 2 was 50.8% (95% CI = 33.7–59.0) and 46.2% (95% CI = 33.7–59.0) for urine and cervical samples, respectively. Conclusions Although these results demonstrated slightly higher detection rates for HR-HPV and clinical sensitivity in cervical samples than in urine, when compared with histological diagnoses, urine sampling is a viable alternative to access women who do not participate in routine screening programs.(undefined)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio