This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The specificities of four assays for hepatitis C virus (HCV) were compared by using units from volunteer blood donors. Upon Food and Drug Administration licensure of the first immunoassay for anti-HCV, EIA-1, units previously deemed acceptable for transfusion and all subsequent blood donations were screened. EIA-1 repeat-reactive (RR) units were tested for HCV by a second-generation enzyme-linked immunoassay (EIA-2) and by a four-antigen recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA II) and for HCV RNA by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. All HCV RNA-positive samples were reactive by both RIBA II and EIA-2. All RIBA II-reactive sera were EIA-2 RR. In EIA-1, 0.45% of the prescreened units and 0.59% of the prospectively screened donors were RR. Of these, 52.5 and 54%, respectively, were EIA-2 RR, 71.4 and 69% of the EIA-2 RR units were reactive on RIBA II, and 93 and 88% of the RIBA II-reactive samples were HCV RNA positive. When the sample/cutoff ratio for EIA-2 was greater than 5, 91% of the samples were RIBA II reactive and 82% of the samples were HCV RNA positive. None of EIA-2 RR units with a sample/cutoff ratio of < 5 was RIBA II reactive or HCV RNA positive. In conclusion, RIBA II and RT PCR results are highly concordant. A sample/cutoff ratio of > 5 in EIA-2 is a good discriminator for the likelihood of a true HCV infection on the basis of RT PCR and RIBA II assays.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: