Cargando…

Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests

BACKGROUND: Blood centers in India have published individual donor nucleic acid testing (ID-NAT) data based on an algorithm (Algorithm A) where serologically negative, NAT reactive sample was subsequently tested with discriminatory NAT (d-NAT), and on the basis of d-NAT, initial reactive samples wer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tiwari, Aseem Kumar, Dara, Ravi C., Arora, Dinesh, Aggarwal, Geet, Rawat, Ganesh, Raina, Vimarsh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5613421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28970682
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6247.214330
_version_ 1783266252040437760
author Tiwari, Aseem Kumar
Dara, Ravi C.
Arora, Dinesh
Aggarwal, Geet
Rawat, Ganesh
Raina, Vimarsh
author_facet Tiwari, Aseem Kumar
Dara, Ravi C.
Arora, Dinesh
Aggarwal, Geet
Rawat, Ganesh
Raina, Vimarsh
author_sort Tiwari, Aseem Kumar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Blood centers in India have published individual donor nucleic acid testing (ID-NAT) data based on an algorithm (Algorithm A) where serologically negative, NAT reactive sample was subsequently tested with discriminatory NAT (d-NAT), and on the basis of d-NAT, initial reactive samples were classified as “NAT yield” or inconclusive. We followed Algorithm B based on replicate testing and Ultrio Plus assay and compared the results with Algorithm A with Ultrio assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results of ID-NAT using two algorithms were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 88,583 (31,844 with Algorithm A and 56,739 with Algorithm B) samples were tested. Among serology nonreactive donations, NAT inconclusive results came down from 95.2% in Algorithm A to 73.1% in Algorithm B (P = 0.0001). Discriminated yield (DY) rate went up from 4.7% in Algorithm A to 21.9% in Algorithm B (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study data suggest that replicate testing strategy and Ultrio Plus reduce the number of “inconclusive results” seen with earlier commonly used algorithm. We recommend a replicate testing strategy in ID-NAT testing since it will increase the DY and will eliminate the unnecessary discriminatory tests.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5613421
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56134212017-10-02 Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests Tiwari, Aseem Kumar Dara, Ravi C. Arora, Dinesh Aggarwal, Geet Rawat, Ganesh Raina, Vimarsh Asian J Transfus Sci Original Article BACKGROUND: Blood centers in India have published individual donor nucleic acid testing (ID-NAT) data based on an algorithm (Algorithm A) where serologically negative, NAT reactive sample was subsequently tested with discriminatory NAT (d-NAT), and on the basis of d-NAT, initial reactive samples were classified as “NAT yield” or inconclusive. We followed Algorithm B based on replicate testing and Ultrio Plus assay and compared the results with Algorithm A with Ultrio assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results of ID-NAT using two algorithms were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 88,583 (31,844 with Algorithm A and 56,739 with Algorithm B) samples were tested. Among serology nonreactive donations, NAT inconclusive results came down from 95.2% in Algorithm A to 73.1% in Algorithm B (P = 0.0001). Discriminated yield (DY) rate went up from 4.7% in Algorithm A to 21.9% in Algorithm B (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The study data suggest that replicate testing strategy and Ultrio Plus reduce the number of “inconclusive results” seen with earlier commonly used algorithm. We recommend a replicate testing strategy in ID-NAT testing since it will increase the DY and will eliminate the unnecessary discriminatory tests. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5613421/ /pubmed/28970682 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6247.214330 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Asian Journal of Transfusion Science http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tiwari, Aseem Kumar
Dara, Ravi C.
Arora, Dinesh
Aggarwal, Geet
Rawat, Ganesh
Raina, Vimarsh
Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests
title Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests
title_full Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests
title_fullStr Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests
title_short Comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests
title_sort comparison of two algorithms to confirm and discriminate samples initially reactive for nucleic acid amplification tests
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5613421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28970682
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6247.214330
work_keys_str_mv AT tiwariaseemkumar comparisonoftwoalgorithmstoconfirmanddiscriminatesamplesinitiallyreactivefornucleicacidamplificationtests
AT dararavic comparisonoftwoalgorithmstoconfirmanddiscriminatesamplesinitiallyreactivefornucleicacidamplificationtests
AT aroradinesh comparisonoftwoalgorithmstoconfirmanddiscriminatesamplesinitiallyreactivefornucleicacidamplificationtests
AT aggarwalgeet comparisonoftwoalgorithmstoconfirmanddiscriminatesamplesinitiallyreactivefornucleicacidamplificationtests
AT rawatganesh comparisonoftwoalgorithmstoconfirmanddiscriminatesamplesinitiallyreactivefornucleicacidamplificationtests
AT rainavimarsh comparisonoftwoalgorithmstoconfirmanddiscriminatesamplesinitiallyreactivefornucleicacidamplificationtests