D. Robert Dufour

Background: Antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV) have typically been detected by enzyme immunoassay (EIA). A chemiluminescence assay (CA) for anti-HCV is now commercially available. Methods: We compared the positive rate for a CA in a HCV screening program for veterans with historical rates obtained with EIA. We also compared results in 2824 samples tested by both methods and assessed the significance of low signal-to-cutoff (S/C) ratios. Results: The frequency of CA-positive results was significantly lower than with EIA (12.6% vs 16.0%; P <0.0001). The frequency of low S/C ratios was also significantly lower with CA (11.5% vs 20.0%; P <0.0001). Among low-positive values, samples positive by CA were significantly less likely to be recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA)-negative (64% vs 84%; P <0.0005). In parallel testing, results for 111 samples (3.9%) were discrepant between the two assays; all but 6 had low S/C ratios, and confirmatory testing was performed on all but 8 samples. Of 56 EIA-positive, CA-negative samples tested by RIBA, only 1 was positive. Of 24 CA-positive, EIA-negative samples, 62% were RIBA-negative. Using a negative RIBA result as an indication of false-positive anti-HCV results, the positive predictive value of EIA was 93% compared with 98% with CA. HCV RNA was positive in 90% of samples high-positive by both CA and EIA. Only 2 of 30 (7%) low-positive CA samples were RNA-positive. Conclusions: CA produces fewer false-positive and fewer low-positive results that require confirmatory RIBA testing. The S/C ratio remains useful for characterizing positive results.

Background: Tests for hepatitis C antibodies (anti-HCV enzyme immunoassays) are usually described as positive or negative. Several studies, mainly in blood donors, have found that specimens with low signal/cutoff (S/C) ratios are commonly negative when tested with a recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) or for HCV RNA. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 17 418 consecutive anti-HCV results from a screening program for high-risk veterans; 2986 (17.1%) samples were anti-HCV-positive, and 490 (16.4%) had S/C ratios ≤3.7 (low positive). Additional tests were performed in 1814 anti-HCV-positive individuals. Results: RIBA was performed in 263 patients with low-positive anti-HCV; results were negative in 86%, indeterminate in 12%, and positive in 2%. Only 16 of 140 individuals (11%) with low-positive anti-HCV values were HCV RNA-positive, whereas HCV RNA was positive in 90% of 1435 individuals with high-positive anti-HCV values (P <0.0001). Compared with those with high-positive anti-HCV, individuals with low-positive anti-HCV values were older (P <0.0001) and were less likely to have risk factors for HCV (P <0.0001 for most), multiple increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) activity values (30% vs 81%; P <0.0001), or positive anti-hepatitis B core antigen (19% vs 59%; P <0.0002). Among 634 individuals with high anti-HCV titers and multiple increased ALT activity values, 95% were HCV RNA-positive. Conclusions: The S/C ratio is important even in high-risk individuals; laboratories should report the S/C ratio along with anti-HCV EIA results and perform supplemental RIBA testing in those with low-positive values to avoid reporting false-positive results.

Purpose: To review information on performance characteristics for tests that are commonly used to identify acute and chronic hepatic injury. Data Sources and Study Selection: A MEDLINE search was performed for key words related to hepatic tests, including quality specifications, aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, γ-glutamyltransferase, bilirubin, albumin, ammonia, and viral markers. Abstracts were reviewed, and articles discussing performance of laboratory tests were selected for review. Additional articles were selected from the references. Guideline Preparation and Review: Drafts of the guidelines were posted on the Internet, presented at the AACC Annual Meeting in 1999, and reviewed by experts. Areas requiring further amplification or literature review were identified for further analysis. Specific recommendations were made based on analysis of published data and evaluated for strength of evidence and clinical impact. The drafts were also reviewed by the Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and approved by the committee and the Association’s Council. Recommendations: Although many specific recommendations are made in the guidelines, some summary recommendations are discussed here. Alanine aminotransferase is the most important test for recognition of acute and chronic hepatic injury. Performance goals should aim for total error of <10% at the upper reference limit to meet clinical needs in monitoring patients with chronic hepatic injury. Laboratories should have age-adjusted reference limits for enzymes in children, and gender-adjusted reference limits for aminotransferases, γ-glutamyltransferase, and total bilirubin in adults. The international normalized ratio should not be the sole method for reporting results of prothrombin time in liver disease; additional research is needed to determine the reporting mechanism that best correlates with functional impairment. Harmonization is needed for alanine aminotransferase activity, and improved standardization for hepatitis C viral RNA measurements.

Purpose: To review information on the use of laboratory tests in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of acute and chronic hepatic injury. Data Sources and Study Selection: A MEDLINE search was performed for key words related to hepatic diseases, including acute hepatitis, chronic hepatitis, alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and etiologic causes. Abstracts were reviewed, and articles discussing use of laboratory tests selected for review. Additional articles were selected from the references. Guideline Preparation and Review: Drafts of the guidelines were posted on the Internet, presented at the AACC Annual Meeting in 1999, and reviewed by experts. Areas requiring further amplification or literature review were identified for further analysis. Specific recommendations were made based on analysis of published data and evaluated for strength of evidence and clinical impact. Recommendations: Although many specific recommendations are made in the guidelines, only some summary recommendations are listed here. In acute hepatic injury, prothrombin time and, to a lesser extent, total bilirubin are the best indicators of severity of disease. Although ALT is useful for detecting acute and chronic hepatic injury, it is not related to severity of acute hepatic injury and only weakly related to severity of chronic hepatic injury. Specific tests of viral markers should be the initial differential tests in both acute and chronic hepatic injury; when positive, they are also useful for monitoring recovery from hepatitis B and C.