2003
DOI: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.2003.00541.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

HIV antibody screening remains indispensable for ensuring viral safety of blood components despite NAT implementation

Abstract: The results clearly demonstrate that anti-HIV screening should not be withdrawn from biologic qualification procedures of blood donations, even when single NAT is performed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These ECs have been identified among HIV-infected blood donors in several countries and the proportion varies between 1 and 4% depending on the sensitivity of the NAT screening systems employed. 19 None of these EC donations in South Africa had quantifiable viral load results in the Roche TaqMan dual target (LTR/gag) viral load assay, confirming that the Ultrio dual target (LTR/pol) assay did not fail to detect any strains of HIV-1. 20,21 In a considerable proportion (25%) of EC donors HIV-RNA could not be detected despite 10 to 33 replicate Ultrio assays.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…These ECs have been identified among HIV-infected blood donors in several countries and the proportion varies between 1 and 4% depending on the sensitivity of the NAT screening systems employed. 19 None of these EC donations in South Africa had quantifiable viral load results in the Roche TaqMan dual target (LTR/gag) viral load assay, confirming that the Ultrio dual target (LTR/pol) assay did not fail to detect any strains of HIV-1. 20,21 In a considerable proportion (25%) of EC donors HIV-RNA could not be detected despite 10 to 33 replicate Ultrio assays.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…NAAT is an appealing addition in that it detects virus directly and uses technology that does not share features with the antibody tests. However, it is less sensitive for detection of established infection than the serologic tests (Table 1) (1,19,30,42). On the other hand, it is more sensitive than the serologic tests for early infection (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assays are ranked on the basis of the total number of samples identified as reactive; results of these studies are published in the literature. Only the top-performing assays are recommended to laboratories for continued use [68,[89][90][91].…”
Section: The Three-legged Racementioning
confidence: 99%