False‐negative testing errors in routine viral marker screening of blood donors
- 1 May 2000
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Transfusion
- Vol. 40 (5) , 585-589
- https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2000.40050585.x
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The contribution of testing errors to the risk of virus transmission by transfusion depends on the rate of false-negative testing errors and the prevalence of infected seropositive donations. Although the false-negative testing error rate has been estimated at 0.1 to 1 percent on the basis of proficiency studies, it has not previously been measured in routine donor screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A 1991 to 1995 database containing 5,153,153 donations from 1.5 x 106 donors (including autologous donors) was searched to identify donors who tested seropositive for HIV, HCV, HTLV-I or II and who attempted subsequent donations. The false-negative rate in routinely screened follow-up donations was determined, and false-negative cases were investigated to identify the cause. RESULTS: Subsequent donations (n = 2015) by 1224 donors with confirmed-positive results were identified. Eleven (0.5%) of these donations did not react in EIA. Ten of the 11 false-negative cases were attributable to borderline-reactive donations. On subsequent donations, there were borderline-nonreactive results on HTLV-I (2 cases), first-generation HCV (5 cases), and second-generation HCV (3 cases) EIAs. The final case was strongly reactive for HCV in a second-generation EIA on two donations (signal-to-cutoff [S:C] ratio >3.5), followed by a baseline nonreactive result on a third donation (S:C = 0.05). CONCLUSION: False-negative testing results occur infrequently during routine infectious-disease donor screening. Although most false-negative results occurred with borderline-reactive HTLV-II samples and/or early-generation HCV EIAs, frank technical errors (e.g., sample mixup or failure to add sample to EIA well) also occur at a low rate (0.05%; 95% CI, 0-1.5%). Process enhancements designed to reduce errors (e.g., enhanced automation of data management and testing systems and process controls for EIAs) are warranted to detect and prevent false-negative results.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- The incidence/window period model and its use to assess the risk of transfusion-transmitted human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus infectionTransfusion Medicine Reviews, 1997
- False‐positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 western blot tests in noninfected blood donorsTransfusion, 1996
- The Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study (REDS): rationale and methodsTransfusion, 1995
- Sensitivity of United States HIV antibody tests for detection of HIV-1 group O infectionsThe Lancet, 1994
- Transfusion Errors: Causes and EffectsTransfusion Medicine Reviews, 1994
- A pattern of 5‐1‐1 and c100‐3 only on hepatitis C virus (HCV) recombinant immunoblot assay does not reflect HCV infection in blood donorsTransfusion, 1993
- Increased detection of hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐infected blood donors by a multiple‐antigen HCV enzyme immunoassayTransfusion, 1992
- Idiopathic CD4 + T‐lymphocytopenia (ICL) and the safety of blood transfusions: What do we know and what should we do?Transfusion, 1992
- Comparative evaluation of supplemental hepatitis C virus antibody test systemsTransfusion, 1992
- Prevalence of antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 among blood donors prior to screening, The Transfusion Safety Study/NHLBI Donor RepositoryTransfusion, 1989