Limits...
Screening for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, and Treponema pallidum by Blood Testing Using a Bio-Flash Technology-Based Algorithm before Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Currently, conventional enzyme immunoassays which use manual gold immunoassays and colloidal tests (GICTs) are used as screening tools to detect Treponema pallidum (syphilis), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), and HIV-2 in patients undergoing surgery. The present observational, cross-sectional study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and work flow characteristics of the conventional algorithm with manual GICTs with those of a newly proposed algorithm that uses the automated Bio-Flash technology as a screening tool in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. A total of 956 patients were examined for the presence of serological markers of infection with HIV-1/2, HCV, HBV, and T. pallidum. The proposed algorithm with the Bio-Flash technology was superior for the detection of all markers (100.0% sensitivity and specificity for detection of anti-HIV and anti-HCV antibodies, HBV surface antigen [HBsAg], and T. pallidum) compared with the conventional algorithm based on the manual method (80.0% sensitivity and 98.6% specificity for the detection of anti-HIV, 75.0% sensitivity for the detection of anti-HCV, 94.7% sensitivity for the detection of HBsAg, and 100% specificity for the detection of anti-HCV and HBsAg) in these patients. The automated Bio-Flash technology-based screening algorithm also reduced the operation time by 85.0% (205 min) per day, saving up to 24 h/week. In conclusion, the use of the newly proposed screening algorithm based on the automated Bio-Flash technology can provide an advantage over the use of conventional algorithms based on manual methods for screening for HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis before GI endoscopy.

No MeSH data available.


Comparison of screening algorithms and test results for the automated chemiluminescent Bio-Flash technology-based screening algorithm (the new proposed laboratory procedure) and the manual GICT screening algorithm (the regular laboratory procedure). Positive and negative refer to positivity and negativity for any evaluated markers.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5121391&req=5

Figure 2: Comparison of screening algorithms and test results for the automated chemiluminescent Bio-Flash technology-based screening algorithm (the new proposed laboratory procedure) and the manual GICT screening algorithm (the regular laboratory procedure). Positive and negative refer to positivity and negativity for any evaluated markers.

Mentions: The main aim of the proposed algorithm for the screening of serum samples for infection markers was the inclusion of the two-step Bio-Flash technology. Samples that were initially reactive were automatically retested using the Bio-Flash technology, and the samples reactive on retesting were subsequently analyzed by GICTs on the same day. Any samples with discordant results were analyzed on day 2 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Fig. 2). In the conventional manual algorithm, the early stages of screening were performed using GICTs (as a regular laboratory procedure). Positive results were confirmed by ELISA on days 2 and 3 (Fig. 2), and the results for any samples with discordant results between ELISA and the GICTs were confirmed by Western blotting. All tests were performed per the manufacturers' instructions.


Screening for Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis B Virus, Hepatitis C Virus, and Treponema pallidum by Blood Testing Using a Bio-Flash Technology-Based Algorithm before Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Comparison of screening algorithms and test results for the automated chemiluminescent Bio-Flash technology-based screening algorithm (the new proposed laboratory procedure) and the manual GICT screening algorithm (the regular laboratory procedure). Positive and negative refer to positivity and negativity for any evaluated markers.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5121391&req=5

Figure 2: Comparison of screening algorithms and test results for the automated chemiluminescent Bio-Flash technology-based screening algorithm (the new proposed laboratory procedure) and the manual GICT screening algorithm (the regular laboratory procedure). Positive and negative refer to positivity and negativity for any evaluated markers.
Mentions: The main aim of the proposed algorithm for the screening of serum samples for infection markers was the inclusion of the two-step Bio-Flash technology. Samples that were initially reactive were automatically retested using the Bio-Flash technology, and the samples reactive on retesting were subsequently analyzed by GICTs on the same day. Any samples with discordant results were analyzed on day 2 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Fig. 2). In the conventional manual algorithm, the early stages of screening were performed using GICTs (as a regular laboratory procedure). Positive results were confirmed by ELISA on days 2 and 3 (Fig. 2), and the results for any samples with discordant results between ELISA and the GICTs were confirmed by Western blotting. All tests were performed per the manufacturers' instructions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Currently, conventional enzyme immunoassays which use manual gold immunoassays and colloidal tests (GICTs) are used as screening tools to detect Treponema pallidum (syphilis), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), and HIV-2 in patients undergoing surgery. The present observational, cross-sectional study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and work flow characteristics of the conventional algorithm with manual GICTs with those of a newly proposed algorithm that uses the automated Bio-Flash technology as a screening tool in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. A total of 956 patients were examined for the presence of serological markers of infection with HIV-1/2, HCV, HBV, and T. pallidum. The proposed algorithm with the Bio-Flash technology was superior for the detection of all markers (100.0% sensitivity and specificity for detection of anti-HIV and anti-HCV antibodies, HBV surface antigen [HBsAg], and T. pallidum) compared with the conventional algorithm based on the manual method (80.0% sensitivity and 98.6% specificity for the detection of anti-HIV, 75.0% sensitivity for the detection of anti-HCV, 94.7% sensitivity for the detection of HBsAg, and 100% specificity for the detection of anti-HCV and HBsAg) in these patients. The automated Bio-Flash technology-based screening algorithm also reduced the operation time by 85.0% (205 min) per day, saving up to 24 h/week. In conclusion, the use of the newly proposed screening algorithm based on the automated Bio-Flash technology can provide an advantage over the use of conventional algorithms based on manual methods for screening for HIV, HBV, HCV, and syphilis before GI endoscopy.

No MeSH data available.