HTLV-II in patients with HTLV-I-associated myelopathy

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a New HTLV‐I/II Polymerase Chain Reaction

Vrielink¹,

Zaaijer

Cuypers

et al. 1997

“…So far, no case of ATL after transfusion of HTLV–I–infected blood products has been reported. Until now the only disease directly related with HTLV–II is a mild myelopathy more or less similar to HAM/TSP [8, 9, 10]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Four HTLV–I and HTLV–I + II ELISAs

Vrielink¹,

Reesink²,

Habibuw³

et al. 1999

Background: Various countries require blood donor screening using assays applying specific HTLV–I and HTLV–II antigens. We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of 4 anti–HTLV–I + II ELISAs (Abbott, Murex, Organon Teknika and Ortho). Methods: Panel A consisted of HTLV–I–positive individuals (n = 41), panel B of Mixed Titer Performance Panel 204 (Boston Biomedica Inc. panels C and D of dilution series from HTLV–I–positive (n= 30) and HTLV–II–positive (n =20) individuals and panel E of sera from first–time blood donors (n = 1,055). Results: In HTLV–I– and –II–positive samples, a sensitivity of 100% could be observed in all 4 ELISAs. In diluted HTLV–I– and –II–positive samples, probit analysis revealed that the Murex assay had the highest analytical sensitivity, followed by the ELISAs from Ortho, Abbott and Organon Teknika. In specimens from first–time donors, a specificity of 100% was observed in ELISAs from Murex, Organon Teknika and Ortho, and of 99.7% in the assay from Abbott. Conclusion: The 4 anti–HTLV–I + II ELISAs studied were appropriate as screening tests.

“…HTLV-II, a closely related virus, may not be asso ciated with a disease; however, a relation with the devel opment of mild myelopathy has been described [4][5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a New HTLV-I/II Polymerase Chain Reaction

Cuypers¹,

Poel²,

Vrielink³

et al. 1997

Aim: Evaluation of a qualitative HTLV-I/Il DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for the detection of HTLV-I/II DNA (Roche Diagnostic Systems, Branchburg, N.J., USA) in various panels. Methods: The panels consisted of fresh EDTA blood samples from blood donors who were anti-HTLV-I/II ELISA repeatably reactive: 53 were Western blot (WB) positive, 228 were WB indeterminate and 15 were WB negative. Elevent ELISA-negative blood donors were used as negative controls. Furthermore, specimens from 1 HTLV-II-infected intravenous drug user and from 1 HTLV-II-infected blood donor were included in the panel. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were prepared by red blood cell lysis with the Roche washing solution and stored at <-23 °C until processing. Amplification products were analyzed with the HTLV-I/II detection kit. Results: All 53 anti-HTLV-I/II ELISA- and WB-positive samples and both HTLV-II-positive samples tested positively by PCR. All 228 anti-HTLV-I/II ELISA-positive and WB-indeterminate, all 15 ELISA-positive and WB-negative and all 11 ELISAnegative control samples tested negative by PCR. Conclusion: The Roche Amplicor HTLV-I/II test is a simple test, suitable for the confirmation of HTLV-I and -II infection in individuals with indeterminate or positive WB patterns.