Development of a World Health Organization International Reference Panel for different genotypes of hepatitis E virus for nucleic acid amplification testing.

Globally, hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a major cause of acute viral hepatitis. Epidemiology and clinical presentation of hepatitis E vary greatly by location and are affected by the HEV genotype. Nucleic acid amplification technique (NAT)-based assays are important for the detection of acute HEV infection as well for monitoring chronic cases of hepatitis E. The aim of the study was to evaluate a panel of samples containing different genotypes of HEV for use in nucleic NAT-based assays. The panel of samples comprises eleven different members including HEV genotype 1a (2 strains), 1e, 2a, 3b, 3c, 3e, 3f, 4c, 4g as well as a human isolate related to rabbit HEV. Each laboratory assayed the panel members directly against the 1 World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) for HEV RNA (6329/10) which is based upon a genotype 3 a strain. The samples for evaluation were distributed to 24 laboratories from 14 different countries and assayed on three separate days. Of these, 23 participating laboratories returned a total of 32 sets of data; 17 from quantitative assays and 15 from qualitative assays. The assays used consisted of a mixture of in-house developed and commercially available assays. The results showed that all samples were detected consistently by the majority of participants, although in some cases, some samples were detected less efficiently. Based on the results of the collaborative study the panel (code number 8578/13) was established as the "1st International Reference Panel (IRP) for all HEV genotypes for NAT-based assays" by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. This IRP will be important for assay validation and ensuring adequate detection of different genotypes and clinically important sub-genotypes of HEV

Evaluation of human T-cell leukemia virus in vitro diagnostics using plasma specimens collected in Japan

Abstract Background In vitro diagnostics (IVDs) for primary detection test/screening of human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV) have recently been updated to new-generation products in Japan. In this study, the performance of these products was evaluated and discussed in terms of the usability of HTLV diagnosis in Japan. Methods The performance of 10 HTLV IVDs for primary detection test and confirmatory/discriminatory test was evaluated. Plasma specimens that had been declared ineligible for transfusion were provided by the Japanese Red Cross Blood Center. Results The diagnostic specificity of the IVDs was 100% (160/160). Six sandwich assays resulted in all HTLV-1/HTLV-positive specimens being positive (46/46). On the other hand, one sandwich assay, IVD under development 2 (UD2), resulted in one HTLV-1-positive and one HTLV-positive specimen being negative (44/46, 95.7%). One indirect assay, HISCL HTLV-1, could not detect one HTLV-positive specimen (45/46, 97.8%), but the updated product, UD1, correctly detected it (46/46, 100%). Serodia HTLV-I, based on a particle agglutination assay, resulted in 44 of the 46 positive specimens, but could not detect two specimens (44/46, 95.7%). ESPLINE HTLV-I/II, based on an immunochromatography assay (ICA), was able to diagnose all specimens as positive (46/46, 100%). Conclusions Six sandwich assays and an ICA demonstrated high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and are recommended for use in HTLV diagnosis in conjunction with confirmatory/discriminatory test using the INNO-LIA HTLV-I/II Score

Evaluation of Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay for the confirmatory and differential diagnosis of HIV-1/HIV-2 in Japan and reliability of the Geenius Reader in the diagnosis of HIV-2

Abstract Background NEW LAV BLOT I and II (LAV I and LAV II), they were only option for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) confirmatory test, following HIV screening test using HIV Ag/Ab combination test in Japan. We evaluated the performance of Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay (Geenius), both as a confirmatory test and for differentiation between HIV-1 and HIV-2, in comparison with LAV I and LAV II. Methods Eighty-nine HIV-1-positive plasma specimens, one anti-HIV-1 low-titer performance panel, 10 seroconversion panels, and two anti-HIV-1/2 combo performance panels were tested. The results were read with the Geenius Reader and by visual reading. Results All 89 HIV-1-positive plasma specimens were identified as HIV-1-positive using Geenius; this 100% success rate was superior to that with LAV I (95.5% using WHO criteria, 98.9% using CDC criteria). The HIV-1-positive specimens showed low cross-reactivity with HIV-2 lines in Geenius. The sensitivity of Geenius for HIV-1 detection was the same as or greater than that of LAV I, but less than that of Genscreen HIV Ag-Ab ULT, in our analysis of the commercial performance and seroconversion panels. In contrast, five of the 13 HIV-2-positive specimens that had been identified as HIV-positive untypable by visual reading because of their cross-reactivity to HIV-1 lines were successfully identified by the Geenius Reader as HIV-2-positive with cross-reactivity. Conclusions Geenius provides strong performance for HIV confirmatory tests and HIV-1 differentiation tests. However, when visual reading is used, its performance in HIV-2 differentiation is less reliable. Because HIV-2 infection has been sporadically reported in Japan, the use of the Geenius Reader is preferable to ensure more reliable HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation

Performance evaluation of in vitro diagnostic kits for hepatitis B virus infection using the regional reference panel of Japan

Abstract Background Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a global public health concern. Precise and sensitive detection of viral markers, including HBV DNA and HBs antigen (Ag), is essential to determine HBV infection. Methods The sensitivities and specificities of 5 HBV DNA and 14 HBsAg kits were evaluated using World Health Organization International Standards (WHO IS) and the Regional Reference Panel (RRP) consisting of 64 HBsAg-negative and 80 HBsAg-positive specimens. Results All 5 HBV DNA kits detected HBV DNA in the WHO IS at a concentration of 10 IU/mL. The sensitivity and specificity to the RRP were 98.8–100% and 96.9–100%, respectively. HBV DNA titers were well correlated among the 5 kits regardless of HBV genotype. However, discordance of the HBV DNA titer was found in 5 specimens measured by CAP/CTM HBV v2.0. Among 12 automated HBsAg kits, the minimum detectable concentrations in the WHO IS varied from 0.01 to 0.1 IU/mL. Two lateral flow assays were positive for WHO IS concentrations greater than or equal to 1.0 and 0.1 IU/mL, respectively. When analyzed by the RRP, 12 automated kits exhibited a sensitivity of 98.8–100%, and 2 lateral flow assays showed sensitivities of 93.8% and 100%. The specificities of HBsAg kits were 100%. In the quantification of HBsAg, some kits showed a poor correlation of measurements with each other and showed up to a 1.7-fold difference in the regression coefficient of HBsAg titers. There were variations in the correlations of measurements among HBsAg kits when analyzed by genotype. Conclusions Five HBV DNA kits showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to determine HBV infection. HBV DNA titers were compatible with each other irrespective of HBV genotypes. HBsAg kits had enough sensitivity and specificity to screen for HBV infection. One of the lateral flow assays had a nearly equivalent sensitivity to that of the automated HBsAg kit. HBsAg titers quantified by the evaluated kits were not compatible across the kits. Genotype-dependent amino acid variations might affect the quantification of HBsAg titers