Currently, the second-and third-generation enzyme immunoassays (EIA-2
and EIA-3) for hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV) are the most prac
tical screening tests for the diagnosis of HCV infection. The need for
and the choice of supplementary or confirmatory tests depend on the c
linical setting and the likelihood of a true-positive EIA result. Dete
ction of HCV RNA in serum by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay is
the gold standard for the diagnosis of HCV infection. However, the lac
k of uniformity in current FCR assays has tarnished this standard. Con
firmatory tests for the diagnosis of HCV infection are in general unne
cessary in anti-HCV-positive patients who present with chronic liver d
isease. When indicated, the most appropriate test in this setting is a
qualitative PCR assay for HCV RNA. Confirmatory tests should always b
e performed in anti-HCV-positive blood donors and individuals with nor
mal aminotransferase levels. The most appropriate approach is to retes
t for anti-HCV using recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA) and then test
for HCV RNA using PCR assay in those who are RIBA positive or indeter
minate. fiver histology is the gold standard in assessing severity of
liver disease. Quantitative tests for serum HCV RNA levels do not help
to determine the severity of liver disease. At the moment, HCV genoty
ping should be considered a research tool and not a part of the diagno
stic work-up in clinical practice. The goals of treatment for chronic
hepatitis C are sustained biochemical and virological response. Viral
clearance should be determined by qualitative PCR assay. Quantifying s
erum HCV RNA level can help in predicting response to interferon treat
ment, but further studies using more standardized assays are needed to
determine if these values can be used to select patients for treatmen
t.