Transfusion · 2018
Hepatitis E virus blood donor NAT screening: as much as possible or as much as needed?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vollmer T, Diekmann J, Knabbe C, Dreier J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The cost-benefit question of general screening of blood products for the hepatitis E virus (HEV) is currently being discussed. One central question is the need for individual nucleic acid amplification techniques (NAT) screening (ID-NAT) versus minipool NAT screening (MP-NAT) approaches to identify all relevant viremias in blood donors. Here, the findings of ID-NAT versus MP-NAT in pools of 96 samples were compared.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: From November 2017 to January 2018, a total of 10,141 allogenic blood donations from 7650 individual German blood donors were screened for the presence of HEV RNA using MP-NAT (96 samples) (RealStar HEV RT-PCR Kit) compared to ID-NAT (cobas HEV assay) on the fully automated cobas 6800 platform.
RESULTS: Parallel screening of MP (n = 122, 96 samples/MP) using both methods detected seven reactive pools. After pool resolution, 8 HEV RNA-positive donations were identified by the in-house detection method, whereas 17 HEV RNA-positive donations were identified by ID-NAT with the cobas HEV assay. This resulted in an incidence of 1:1268 donations (0.079%) for MP-NAT screening and 1:597 donations (0.168%) for ID-NAT screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The detection frequency of HEV RNA was approximately 50% higher if ID-NAT was used compared to MP-NAT. However, viral loads of ID-NAT-only samples were below 25 IU/mL and will often not result in transfusion-transmitted HEV (TT-HEV) infection, taking into account the currently known infectious dose of 5.0E + 04 IU inevitably resulting in TT-HEV infection. The clinical relevance and need for identification of these low-level HEV-positive donors still require further investigation.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: From November 2017 to January 2018, a total of 10,141 allogenic blood donations from 7650 individual German blood donors were screened for the presence of HEV RNA using MP-NAT (96 samples) (RealStar HEV RT-PCR Kit) compared to ID-NAT (cobas HEV assay) on the fully automated cobas 6800 platform.
RESULTS: Parallel screening of MP (n = 122, 96 samples/MP) using both methods detected seven reactive pools. After pool resolution, 8 HEV RNA-positive donations were identified by the in-house detection method, whereas 17 HEV RNA-positive donations were identified by ID-NAT with the cobas HEV assay. This resulted in an incidence of 1:1268 donations (0.079%) for MP-NAT screening and 1:597 donations (0.168%) for ID-NAT screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The detection frequency of HEV RNA was approximately 50% higher if ID-NAT was used compared to MP-NAT. However, viral loads of ID-NAT-only samples were below 25 IU/mL and will often not result in transfusion-transmitted HEV (TT-HEV) infection, taking into account the currently known infectious dose of 5.0E + 04 IU inevitably resulting in TT-HEV infection. The clinical relevance and need for identification of these low-level HEV-positive donors still require further investigation.