Dataset Information

Comparison of real-time PCR and antigen assays for detection of hepatitis E virus in blood donors.

ABSTRACT: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is recognized as an emerging and often undiagnosed disease in industrialized countries, with asymptomatic infections actually occurring in blood donors. Sensitive detection of HEV-RNA is crucial for diagnosis and monitoring of disease progression. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and performance of three HEV RT-PCR assays (RealStar HEV reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR], hepatitis@ceeramTools, and ampliCube HEV RT-PCR) for screening of individuals for HEV infections (ID-nucleic acid amplification technology [ID-NAT]) and for blood donor pool screening (minipool-NAT [MP-NAT]). RNA was extracted using NucliSens easyMAG (ID-NAT) and a high-volume extraction protocol (4.8 ml, chemagic Viral 5K, MP-NAT). Three NAT assays were evaluated for ID-NAT but only two assays for MP-NAT due to inhibition of the ampliCube HEV RT-PCR kit using the corresponding RNA extract. Assays provided good analytical sensitivity, ranging from 37.8 to 180.1 IU/ml (ID-NAT) and from 4.7 to 91.2 IU/ml (MP-NAT). The applicability of HEV antigen (HEV-Ag) screening was compared to that of RT-PCR screening and detection of HEV-IgM antibodies using seroconversion panels of 10 HEV genotype 3-infected individuals. Four individuals revealed a positive HEV-Ag detection result, with corresponding viremias ranging from 1.92 E + 03 to 2.19 E + 05 IU/ml, while the progression of HEV-Ag followed that of HEV viremia. The other six individuals showed no presence of HEV-Ag although the corresponding viremias were also in the range of >1.0 E + 03. Anti-HEV-IgM antibodies were detectable in seven donors; one donor presented parallel positivities of HEV-Ag and anti-HEV IgM. The evaluated NAT methods present powerful tools providing sensitive HEV detection. Application of HEV-Ag or anti-HEV IgM screening is currently inferior for the early detection of HEV infection due to the decreased sensitivity compared to NAT methods.

SUBMITTER: Vollmer T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4042739 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of real-time PCR and antigen assays for detection of hepatitis E virus in blood donors.

Vollmer T T Knabbe C C Dreier J J

Journal of clinical microbiology 20140416 6

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is recognized as an emerging and often undiagnosed disease in industrialized countries, with asymptomatic infections actually occurring in blood donors. Sensitive detection of HEV-RNA is crucial for diagnosis and monitoring of disease progression. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and performance of three HEV RT-PCR assays (RealStar HEV reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR], hepatitis@ceeramTools, and ampliCube HEV RT-PCR) for screening of individuals for HEV ...[more]

PMID: 24740079

Similar Datasets

Project description:We compared the diagnostic performance and overall respiratory pathogen detection rate of the premarket version of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) multiplex PCR assay (Idaho Technology, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) with those of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared Prodesse ProFlu+, ProFAST+, ProParaflu+, Pro hMPV+, and ProAdeno+ real-time PCR assays (Gen-Probe, San Diego, CA). The assays were performed on a panel of 192 nasopharyngeal-secretion specimens collected from 81 children under 1 year of age with upper respiratory tract symptoms. To resolve discordant results and confirm pathogens detected only by the larger FilmArray panel, we performed laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays. Among viruses detectable by both commercial assays (adenovirus, human metapneumovirus, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, parainfluenza viruses 1 to 3, and respiratory syncytial virus), the FilmArray and Prodesse assays showed good overall agreement (181/192 [94.3%]; kappa = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94). FilmArray RP detected more parainfluenza viruses 1 and 3 than ProParaflu+ (18 versus 13) while ProAdeno+ detected more adenoviruses (11 versus 6), but these differences were not statistically significant. Additionally, FilmArray RP detected 138 pathogens (confirmed as true positives) not included in the Prodesse assays (rhinovirus [RV]/enterovirus [EV], 118; bocavirus, 8; coronavirus, 7; parainfluenza virus 4, 4; Mycoplasma pneumoniae, 1). FilmArray RP was cleared by the FDA following the completion of this study. The FDA-cleared version includes the following targets: adenovirus, coronaviruses HKU1 and NL63, human metapneumovirus (hMPV), influenza A virus (to type level only), influenza A H1 seasonal virus, influenza A H3 seasonal virus, influenza A virus H1-2009, influenza B virus, parainfluenza viruses 1 to 4, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and RV/EV (no differentiation). The larger panel in the FilmArray RP assay allowed the detection of additional respiratory pathogens compared to the Prodesse assays. In this population of young children with upper respiratory tract infection, RV/EV accounted for the majority of the additional pathogens detected by FilmArray RP.

Dataset Information

Comparison of real-time PCR and antigen assays for detection of hepatitis E virus in blood donors.

Publications

Comparison of real-time PCR and antigen assays for detection of hepatitis E virus in blood donors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets