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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |