{"title":"丙型肝炎病毒抗体酶免疫测定结果特异性和非特异性结果的年龄、性别和转氨酶依赖性及献血者随访","authors":"G Caspari, W H Gerlich, J Beyer, H Schmitt","doi":"10.1159/000223127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Second-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA-2) for antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV) have an improved specificity and sensitivity compared to first-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA-1). Therefore the question arises how many anti-HCV-positive blood donors were missed by the EIA-1, how many were false positive, how false-positive donors should be dealt with and how the results of the EIA-2 correlate with demographic data and surrogate testing for serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 208,544 individual North German blood donors not preselected for anti-HCV negativity were tested for anti-HCV with EIA-2 and, if repeatedly reactive (rr), with a licensed supplementary test (RIBA-2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 0.43% of the donors were EIA-2 rr, but only 0.12% of women and 0.09% of men were RIBA-2 positive. RIBA-2 positivity rates were very low in donors 18 to 27 years old (0.03% and 0.05%) and clearly rose with age in women but not in men. The rate of unspecifically positive EIA-2 results (entirely negative in RIBA-2) rose with age in both sexes and did not correlate with ALT. The ALT distribution was age dependent with a completely different pattern for men and women. Anti-HCV positivity was strongly correlated with ALT albeit on a very low level: more than 97% of donors with strongly elevated ALT were anti-HCV negative. Follow-up and comparison of EIA-1, EIA-2 and RIBA-2 results for the subsequent donations showed that only 8% of now RIBA-2-positive donors were not detected by EIA-1. Apparent seroconversions in EIA-2 are usually not specific: only one out of 66 apparent seroconversions could be confirmed by RIBA-2. 0.15% of the donor population showed an inconsistent EIA-2 pattern during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We therefore suggest that donors should not be excluded from further donations on the basis even of multiple EIA-1 positive results or on the basis of only one EIA-2-positive donation. The value of ALT screening for transfusion safety should be reconsidered.</p>","PeriodicalId":13632,"journal":{"name":"Infusionstherapie und Transfusionsmedizin","volume":"22 4","pages":"208-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000223127","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Age, sex and transaminase dependency of specific and nonspecific results from enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to hepatitis C virus and follow-up of blood donors.\",\"authors\":\"G Caspari, W H Gerlich, J Beyer, H Schmitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000223127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Second-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA-2) for antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV) have an improved specificity and sensitivity compared to first-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA-1). Therefore the question arises how many anti-HCV-positive blood donors were missed by the EIA-1, how many were false positive, how false-positive donors should be dealt with and how the results of the EIA-2 correlate with demographic data and surrogate testing for serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 208,544 individual North German blood donors not preselected for anti-HCV negativity were tested for anti-HCV with EIA-2 and, if repeatedly reactive (rr), with a licensed supplementary test (RIBA-2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 0.43% of the donors were EIA-2 rr, but only 0.12% of women and 0.09% of men were RIBA-2 positive. RIBA-2 positivity rates were very low in donors 18 to 27 years old (0.03% and 0.05%) and clearly rose with age in women but not in men. The rate of unspecifically positive EIA-2 results (entirely negative in RIBA-2) rose with age in both sexes and did not correlate with ALT. The ALT distribution was age dependent with a completely different pattern for men and women. Anti-HCV positivity was strongly correlated with ALT albeit on a very low level: more than 97% of donors with strongly elevated ALT were anti-HCV negative. Follow-up and comparison of EIA-1, EIA-2 and RIBA-2 results for the subsequent donations showed that only 8% of now RIBA-2-positive donors were not detected by EIA-1. Apparent seroconversions in EIA-2 are usually not specific: only one out of 66 apparent seroconversions could be confirmed by RIBA-2. 0.15% of the donor population showed an inconsistent EIA-2 pattern during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We therefore suggest that donors should not be excluded from further donations on the basis even of multiple EIA-1 positive results or on the basis of only one EIA-2-positive donation. The value of ALT screening for transfusion safety should be reconsidered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infusionstherapie und Transfusionsmedizin\",\"volume\":\"22 4\",\"pages\":\"208-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1995-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000223127\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infusionstherapie und Transfusionsmedizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000223127\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infusionstherapie und Transfusionsmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000223127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Age, sex and transaminase dependency of specific and nonspecific results from enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to hepatitis C virus and follow-up of blood donors.
Background: Second-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA-2) for antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV) have an improved specificity and sensitivity compared to first-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA-1). Therefore the question arises how many anti-HCV-positive blood donors were missed by the EIA-1, how many were false positive, how false-positive donors should be dealt with and how the results of the EIA-2 correlate with demographic data and surrogate testing for serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT).
Material and methods: A total of 208,544 individual North German blood donors not preselected for anti-HCV negativity were tested for anti-HCV with EIA-2 and, if repeatedly reactive (rr), with a licensed supplementary test (RIBA-2).
Results: Overall, 0.43% of the donors were EIA-2 rr, but only 0.12% of women and 0.09% of men were RIBA-2 positive. RIBA-2 positivity rates were very low in donors 18 to 27 years old (0.03% and 0.05%) and clearly rose with age in women but not in men. The rate of unspecifically positive EIA-2 results (entirely negative in RIBA-2) rose with age in both sexes and did not correlate with ALT. The ALT distribution was age dependent with a completely different pattern for men and women. Anti-HCV positivity was strongly correlated with ALT albeit on a very low level: more than 97% of donors with strongly elevated ALT were anti-HCV negative. Follow-up and comparison of EIA-1, EIA-2 and RIBA-2 results for the subsequent donations showed that only 8% of now RIBA-2-positive donors were not detected by EIA-1. Apparent seroconversions in EIA-2 are usually not specific: only one out of 66 apparent seroconversions could be confirmed by RIBA-2. 0.15% of the donor population showed an inconsistent EIA-2 pattern during follow-up.
Conclusions: We therefore suggest that donors should not be excluded from further donations on the basis even of multiple EIA-1 positive results or on the basis of only one EIA-2-positive donation. The value of ALT screening for transfusion safety should be reconsidered.