Comparison of Real-Time PCR and Antigen Assays for Detection of Hepatitis E Virus in Blood Donors

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is recognized as an emerging and often undiagnosed disease in industrialized countries, with asymptomatic infections actually occurring in blood donors. Sensitive detection of HEV-RNA is crucial for diagnosis and monitoring of disease progression. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and performance of three HEV RT-PCR assays (RealStar HEV reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR], hepatitis@ceeramTools, and ampliCube HEV RT-PCR) for screening of individuals for HEV infections (ID-nucleic acid amplification technology [ID-NAT]) and for blood donor pool screening (minipool-NAT [MP-NAT]). RNA was extracted using NucliSens easyMAG (ID-NAT) and a high-volume extraction protocol (4.8 ml, chemagic Viral 5K, MP-NAT). Three NAT assays were evaluated for ID-NAT but only two assays for MP-NAT due to inhibition of the ampliCube HEV RT-PCR kit using the corresponding RNA extract. Assays provided good analytical sensitivity, ranging from 37.8 to 180.1 IU/ml (ID-NAT) and from 4.7 to 91.2 IU/ml (MP-NAT). The applicability of HEV antigen (HEV-Ag) screening was compared to that of RT-PCR screening and detection of HEV-IgM antibodies using seroconversion panels of 10 HEV genotype 3-infected individuals. Four individuals revealed a positive HEV-Ag detection result, with corresponding viremias ranging from 1.92E + 03 to 2.19E + 05 IU/ml, while the progression of HEV-Ag followed that of HEV viremia. The other six individuals showed no presence of HEV-Ag although the corresponding viremias were also in the range of > 1.0E + 03. Anti-HEV-IgM antibodies were detectable in seven donors; one donor presented parallel positivities of HEV-Ag and anti-HEV IgM. The evaluated NAT methods present powerful tools providing sensitive HEV detection. Application of HEV-Ag or anti-HEV IgM screening is currently inferior for the early detection of HEV infection due to the decreased sensitivity compared to NAT methods.