Human T-lymphotropic virus type I/II: Status of enzyme immunoassay and Western blot testing in the United States in 1989 and 1990

S. O. Blumer, T. L. Hearn, W. O. Schalla, G. D. Cross, Ronald Valdiserri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In three performance evaluation surveys, panels that consisted of human T- lymphotropic virus type I or type II (HTLV-I/II) antibody-positive and - negative plasma samples were mailed to laboratories that voluntarily participated in the Centers for Disease Control Model Performance Evaluation Program. Donor samples were identical among surveys. In each survey, more than 98% of the laboratories reported enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test results; about 11% also reported results of Western blot (WB) testing. Variation in analytic sensitivity (96.7% to 99.4%) and specificity (98.3% to 99.5%) of EIA tests was noted in the three surveys. For WB testing, no nonreactive interpretations were reported for HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples in any survey; however, indeterminate interpretations were reported for 35.2% to 40.7% of the WB tests that were performed on HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples. More than 95% of these indeterminate WB test interpretations were reported for HTLV-II antibody-positive samples. Although HTLV-I/II antibody tests are generally sensitive and specific, their accuracy could be further improved by increasing the specificity of EIA tests and the sensitivity of WB tests.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)471-476
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Volume116
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1992
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Human T-lymphotropic virus 2
Immunoenzyme Techniques
Western Blotting
Viruses
Antibodies
HTLV-II Antibodies
Program Evaluation
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Human T-lymphotropic virus type I/II : Status of enzyme immunoassay and Western blot testing in the United States in 1989 and 1990. / Blumer, S. O.; Hearn, T. L.; Schalla, W. O.; Cross, G. D.; Valdiserri, Ronald.

In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 116, No. 5, 1992, p. 471-476.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2776a4bd81834dbc8b7c8bea9f92bbcd,
title = "Human T-lymphotropic virus type I/II: Status of enzyme immunoassay and Western blot testing in the United States in 1989 and 1990",
abstract = "In three performance evaluation surveys, panels that consisted of human T- lymphotropic virus type I or type II (HTLV-I/II) antibody-positive and - negative plasma samples were mailed to laboratories that voluntarily participated in the Centers for Disease Control Model Performance Evaluation Program. Donor samples were identical among surveys. In each survey, more than 98{\%} of the laboratories reported enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test results; about 11{\%} also reported results of Western blot (WB) testing. Variation in analytic sensitivity (96.7{\%} to 99.4{\%}) and specificity (98.3{\%} to 99.5{\%}) of EIA tests was noted in the three surveys. For WB testing, no nonreactive interpretations were reported for HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples in any survey; however, indeterminate interpretations were reported for 35.2{\%} to 40.7{\%} of the WB tests that were performed on HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples. More than 95{\%} of these indeterminate WB test interpretations were reported for HTLV-II antibody-positive samples. Although HTLV-I/II antibody tests are generally sensitive and specific, their accuracy could be further improved by increasing the specificity of EIA tests and the sensitivity of WB tests.",
author = "Blumer, {S. O.} and Hearn, {T. L.} and Schalla, {W. O.} and Cross, {G. D.} and Ronald Valdiserri",
year = "1992",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "116",
pages = "471--476",
journal = "Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "0003-9985",
publisher = "College of American Pathologists",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Human T-lymphotropic virus type I/II

T2 - Status of enzyme immunoassay and Western blot testing in the United States in 1989 and 1990

AU - Blumer, S. O.

AU - Hearn, T. L.

AU - Schalla, W. O.

AU - Cross, G. D.

AU - Valdiserri, Ronald

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - In three performance evaluation surveys, panels that consisted of human T- lymphotropic virus type I or type II (HTLV-I/II) antibody-positive and - negative plasma samples were mailed to laboratories that voluntarily participated in the Centers for Disease Control Model Performance Evaluation Program. Donor samples were identical among surveys. In each survey, more than 98% of the laboratories reported enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test results; about 11% also reported results of Western blot (WB) testing. Variation in analytic sensitivity (96.7% to 99.4%) and specificity (98.3% to 99.5%) of EIA tests was noted in the three surveys. For WB testing, no nonreactive interpretations were reported for HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples in any survey; however, indeterminate interpretations were reported for 35.2% to 40.7% of the WB tests that were performed on HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples. More than 95% of these indeterminate WB test interpretations were reported for HTLV-II antibody-positive samples. Although HTLV-I/II antibody tests are generally sensitive and specific, their accuracy could be further improved by increasing the specificity of EIA tests and the sensitivity of WB tests.

AB - In three performance evaluation surveys, panels that consisted of human T- lymphotropic virus type I or type II (HTLV-I/II) antibody-positive and - negative plasma samples were mailed to laboratories that voluntarily participated in the Centers for Disease Control Model Performance Evaluation Program. Donor samples were identical among surveys. In each survey, more than 98% of the laboratories reported enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test results; about 11% also reported results of Western blot (WB) testing. Variation in analytic sensitivity (96.7% to 99.4%) and specificity (98.3% to 99.5%) of EIA tests was noted in the three surveys. For WB testing, no nonreactive interpretations were reported for HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples in any survey; however, indeterminate interpretations were reported for 35.2% to 40.7% of the WB tests that were performed on HTLV-I/II antibody-positive samples. More than 95% of these indeterminate WB test interpretations were reported for HTLV-II antibody-positive samples. Although HTLV-I/II antibody tests are generally sensitive and specific, their accuracy could be further improved by increasing the specificity of EIA tests and the sensitivity of WB tests.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026653838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026653838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 1316110

AN - SCOPUS:0026653838

VL - 116

SP - 471

EP - 476

JO - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

JF - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

SN - 0003-9985

IS - 5

ER -