Comparison between the automated Roche Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 test version 2.0 assay and its version 1 and Nuclisens HIV-1 EasyQ version 2.0 assays when measuring diverse HIV-1 genotypes in China

Evaluation of the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx Assay Using Plasma and Dried Blood Spots

HIV-1 RNA quantitation in plasma, or virus load testing, is the primary method by which the response to antiretroviral therapy is monitored. Here we describe evaluation of the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx assay (Aptima) performed on the automated Panther system. The clinical performance of Aptima was compared to that of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 Test v2.0 (CAP/CTM) using 162 EDTA plasma samples collected from patients undergoing HIV-1 monitoring. Overall agreement was 84.0% (136/162), with a kappa statistic of 0.723 (standard error, 0.047; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.630 to 0.815), indicating substantial agreement. Using the 86 clinical samples quantifiable by both methods, Passing-Bablok regression revealed a regression line of Y = (1.069 × X) - 0.346 (95% CI of the slope [1.003 to 1.139] and intercept [-0.666 to -0.074]), and Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference (Aptima-CAP/CTM) of -0.075 log10 copies/ml (95% limits of agreement of -0.624 to 0.475), consistent with negative bias. Comparison of Aptima results for paired dried blood spot (DBS) and plasma specimens archived from participants in the Peninsula AIDS Research Cohort Study (PARC) demonstrated an overall agreement of 94.7% (90/95) when 1,000 copies/ml was used as the threshold. In conclusion, the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx assay provides a suitable alternative for HIV-1 monitoring in plasma and DBS.

Regulation and quality evaluation system for HIV diagnostics in China

A sophisticated regulatory framework has been constructed for Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnostics in China, which have developed over the past 30 years. China National Institutes for Food and Drug Control acts as the legal institution in this regulatory framework, launching important activities to ensure the quality of HIV diagnostics. These include the analysis of the main problems faced in developing domestic HIV diagnostics, by investigating the quality of HIV diagnostics and their development; exploring the key factors affecting the quality of HIV diagnostics, to determine the criteria for screening national reference samples; the development of new technologies and methods for preparing reference samples; and the establishment of nine types of national reference panels and nine national standards to evaluate the quality of HIV diagnostics. Based on these researches, a quality evaluation system was established, including nine types of national reference panels, nine national standards for HIV diagnostics, and five sample banks (HIV-positive sample bank, HIV-negative sample bank, common international genotype sample bank, seroconversion series sample bank, HIV virus bank) to evaluate the quality of HIV diagnostics in China. The regulatory framework and the quality evaluation system are pivotal in ensuring the quality of the HIV diagnostics licensed in China.

Comparing Abbott m2000 RealTime HIV test and Roche COBAS Ampliprep/COBAS Taqman HIV test, v2.0 in treated HIV-1 B and non-B subjects with low viraemia

Viral load testing is a valuable tool in HIV clinical care and research. Discrepancies among diverse viral load assays, especially with regard to non-B HIV-1 subtypes have been reported. Our study aimed to explore the impact of HIV subtype (B versus non-B) on the agreement between CAP/CTM, v2.0 and m2000 RealTime in treated HIV patients, focusing on low viral loads (<200 copies/ml). Our findings indicate that there is a significant difference in the performance of the compared assays in the low-viremic range and non-B subtypes, suggesting that a single assay should be used for follow-up.

Evaluation of the RealTime HIV-1, Xpert HIV-1, and Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx Assays in Comparison to the NucliSens EasyQ HIV-1 v2.0 Assay for Quantification of HIV-1 Viral Load

HIV-1 RNA monitoring, both before and during antiretroviral therapy, is an integral part of HIV management worldwide. Measurements of HIV-1 viral loads are expected to assess the copy numbers of all common HIV-1 subtypes accurately and to be equally sensitive at different viral loads. In this study, we compared for the first time the performance of the NucliSens v2.0, RealTime HIV-1, Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx, and Xpert HIV-1 viral load assays. Plasma samples (n = 404) were selected on the basis of their NucliSens v2.0 viral load results and HIV-1 subtypes. Concordance, linear regression, and Bland-Altman plots were assessed, and mixed-model analysis was utilized to compare the analytical performance of the assays for different HIV-1 subtypes and for low and high HIV-1 copy numbers. Overall, high concordance (>83.89%), high correlation values (Pearson r values of >0.89), and good agreement were observed among all assays, although the Xpert and Aptima assays, which provided the most similar outputs (estimated mean viral loads of 2.67 log copies/ml [95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50 to 2.84 log copies/ml] and 2.68 log copies/ml [95% CI, 2.49 to 2.86 log copies/ml], respectively), correlated best with the RealTime assay (89.8% concordance, with Pearson r values of 0.97 to 0.98). These three assays exhibited greater precision than the NucliSens v2.0 assay. All assays were equally sensitive for subtype B and AG/G samples and for samples with viral loads of 1.60 to 3.00 log copies/ml. The NucliSens v2.0 assay underestimated A1 samples and those with viral loads of >3.00 log copies/ml. The RealTime assay tended to underquantify subtype C (compared to the Xpert and Aptima assays) and subtype A1 samples. The Xpert and Aptima assays were equally efficient for detection of all subtypes and viral loads, which renders these new assays most suitable for clinical HIV laboratories.

Comparison of the bioMérieux NucliSENS EasyQ HIV-1 v2.0-HIV-1 RNA quantification assay versus Abbott RealTime HIV-1 and Roche Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 v2.0 on current epidemic HIV-1 variants

BACKGROUND

An improved version of the bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 has been introduced to overcome the underquantification observed with previous versions, especially with non-B HIV-1 subtypes.

OBJECTIVES

Comparing bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 versus Roche Cobas CA/CTM v2.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assays for HIV-1 group M and non-M (N, O, P) viral load measurement.

STUDY DESIGN

The three assays were tested in parallel on 103HIV-1 group M plasma samples, and on non-group M HIV-1 culture supernatants.

RESULTS

Values obtained for the 103HIV-1 group M plasma samples tested with bioMérieux assay showed good overall correlation compared to the 2 others. The Roche Cobas assay gave higher values than the bioMérieux assay, while Abbott and bioMérieux both displayed similar results. However, analysis showed a wider dispersion in results when comparing the bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 and the other 2 techniques. All data taken into account, we observed frequent discrepancies in quantification, of the plasma samples and major differences above 1log in 10/72 (13.8%). The quantification of non-M HIV groups in culture supernatant has shown variable results, with better quantification of HIV-O and of HIV-N respectively with the Abbott assay and the bioMérieux assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 showed improved sensitivity to non-B HIV-M subtypes compared to previous versions. Notwithstanding, we observed frequent discrepancies and a wide dispersion in results when comparing bioMérieux NucliSENS(®) EasyQ(®) HIV-1 v2.0 and the other 2 techniques.

Development of an HIV-1 Subtype Panel in China: Isolation and Characterization of 30 HIV-1 Primary Strains Circulating in China

Background

The complex epidemic and significant diversity of HIV-1 strains in China pose serious challenges for surveillance and diagnostic assays, vaccine development and clinical management. There is a lack of HIV-1 isolates in current canonical HIV-1 subtype panels that can represent HIV-1 diversity in China; an HIV-1 subtype panel for China is urgently needed.

Methods

Blood samples were collected from HIV-1 infected patients participating in the drug-resistance surveillance program in China. The samples were isolated, cultured and stored as neat culture supernatant. The HIV-1 isolates were fully characterized. The panel was used to compare 2 viral load assays and 2 p24 assays as the examples of how this panel could be used.

Results

An HIV-1 subtype panel for China composed of 30 HIV-1 primary strains of four subtypes (B [including Thai-B], CRF01_AE, CRF07_BC and G) was established. The samples were isolated and cultured to a high-titer (10⁶-10⁹ copies/ml)/high-volume (40ml). The HIV-1 isolates were fully characterized by the final viral load, p24 concentration, gag-pol and envC2V3 sequencing, co-receptor prediction, determination of the four amino acids at the tip of the env V3-loop, glycosylation sites in the V3 loop and the drug-resistance mutations. The comparison of two p24 assays and two viral load assays on the isolates illustrated how this panel may be used for the evaluation of diagnostic assay performance. The Pearson value between p24 assays were 0.938. The viral load results showed excellent concordance and agreement for samples of Thai-B, but lower correlations for samples of CRF01_AE.

Conclusion

The current panel of 30 HIV-1 isolates served as a basis for the development of a comprehensive panel of fully characterized viral isolates, which could reflect the current dynamic and complex HIV-1 epidemic in China. This panel will be available to support HIV-1 research, assay evaluation, vaccine and drug development.

Comparison of the Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 test v1.0 with v2.0 in HIV-1 viral load quantification

Roche modified the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) test version 1.0 (CAP/CTM v1.0), resulting in the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 test version 2.0 (CAP/CTM v2.0). The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the CAP/CTM v2.0 and to compare this performance with that of the CAP/CTM v1.0. The study was conducted in a small local study group in Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. A total of 86 plasma samples from HIV-1-seropositive patients were tested using the two assays. The correlation and concordance of results between the two assays were calculated. The CAP/CTM v2.0 generated higher values than did the CAP/CTM v1.0, and five samples (5.8%) yielded a difference of > 1 log10 copies/mL. In addition, our data show that CAP/CTM v1.0 and CAP/CTM v2.0 yielded relatively consistent values for 23 samples with low viral loads (< 200 copies/mL). Furthermore, when viral loads were in a medium range (2-5 log10 copies/mL), the results of the two assays were more compatible. This study shows a good correlation between CAP/CTM v1.0 and v2.0 in HIV-1 viral load measurement. Further attention must be paid to those cases in which measured viral loads present larger differences between the two assays.

Evaluation of the NucliSens EasyQ v2.0 assay in comparison with the Roche Amplicor v1.5 and the Roche CAP/CTM HIV-1 Test v2.0 in quantification of C-clade HIV-1 in plasma

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) genetic diversity poses a challenge to reliable viral load monitoring. Discrepancies between different testing platforms have been observed, especially for non-clade-B virus. Therefore we compare, in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve South African subjects predominantly infected with HIV-1 clade-C, three commercially available assays: the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 Test version 2.0 by Roche (CAP/CTM v2.0), the BioMérieux NucliSens Version 2.0 Easy Q/Easy Mag (NucliSens v2.0) and the Roche COBAS Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test Version 1.5 (Amplicor v1.5). Strong linear correlation was observed and Bland-Altman analyses showed overall good agreement between the assays with mean viral load differences of 0.078 log cp/ml (NucliSens v2.0 – Amplicor v1.5), 0.260 log cp/ml (CAP/CTM v2.0 – Amplicor v1.5) and 0.164 log cp/ml (CAP/CTM v2.0 – NucliSens v2.0), indicating lower mean viral load results for the Amplicor v1.5 and higher mean readings for the CAP/CTM v2.0. Consistent with observations following previous comparisons of CAP/CTM v2.0 versus Amplicor v1.5, the CAP/CTM v2.0 assay detected low-level viremia (median 65 cp/ml) in more than one-third of those in whom viremia had been undetectable (<20 cp/ml) in assays using the NucliSens platform. These levels of viremia are of uncertain clinical significance but may be of importance in early detection of ART resistance in those on treatment. Overall the three assays showed good comparability of results but with consistent, albeit relatively small, discrepancies for HIV-1 clade-C samples, especially in the low-viremic range that should be taken into account when interpreting viral load data.

Significance and clinical management of persistent low-level viremia and very-low-level viremia in HIV-1-infected patients

A goal of HIV therapy is to sustain suppression of the plasma viral load below the detection limits of clinical assays. However, widely followed treatment guidelines diverge in their interpretation and recommended management of persistent viremia of low magnitude, reflecting the limited evidence base for this common clinical finding. Here, we review the incidence, risk factors, and potential consequences of low-level HIV viremia (LLV; defined in this review as a viremia level of 50 to 500 copies/ml) and very-low-level viremia (VLLV; defined as a viremia level of <50 copies/ml detected by clinical assays that have quantification cutoffs of <50 copies/ml). Using this framework, we discuss practical issues related to the diagnosis and management of patients experiencing persistent LLV and VLLV. Compared to viral suppression at <50 or 40 copies/ml, persistent LLV is associated with increased risk of antiretroviral drug resistance and overt virologic failure. Higher immune activation and HIV transmission may be additional undesirable consequences in this population. It is uncertain whether LLV of <200 copies/ml confers independent risks, as this level of viremia may reflect assay-dependent artifacts or biologically meaningful events during suppression. Resistance genotyping should be considered in patients with persistent LLV when feasible, and treatment should be modified if resistance is detected. There is a dearth of clinical evidence to guide management when genotyping is not feasible. Increased availability of genotypic assays for samples with viral loads of <400 copies/ml is needed.

Systematic review of the performance of HIV viral load technologies on plasma samples

Background

Viral load (VL) monitoring is the standard of care in developing country settings for detecting HIV treatment failure. Since 2010 the World Health Organization has recommended a phase-in approach to VL monitoring in resource-limited settings. We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy and precision of HIV VL technologies for treatment monitoring.

Methods and Findings

A search of Medline and Embase was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy or reproducibility of commercially available HIV VL assays. 37 studies were included for review including evaluations of the Amplicor Monitor HIV-1 v1.5 (n = 25), Cobas TaqMan v2.0 (n = 11), Abbott RealTime HIV-1 (n = 23), Versant HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 (n = 15), Versant HIV-1 RNA kPCR 1.0 (n = 2), ExaVir Load v3 (n = 2), and NucliSens EasyQ v2.0 (n = 1). All currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma virus levels at a lower detection limit of 1,000 copies/mL. Bias data comparing the Abbott RealTime HIV-1, TaqMan v2.0 to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5 showed a tendency of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 to under-estimate results while the TaqMan v2.0 overestimated VL counts. Compared to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5, 2–26% and 9–70% of results from the Versant bDNA 3.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 differed by greater than 0.5log₁₀. The average intra and inter-assay variation of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 were 2.95% (range 2.0–5.1%) and 5.44% (range 1.17–30.00%) across the range of VL counts (2log₁₀–7log₁₀).

Conclusions

This review found that all currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma VL of 1,000 copies/mL as a threshold to initiate investigations of treatment adherence or possible treatment failure. Sources of variability between VL assays include differences in technology platform, plasma input volume, and ability to detect HIV-1 subtypes. Monitoring of individual patients should be performed on the same technology platform to ensure appropriate interpretation of changes in VL.

Prospero registration # CD42013003603.

Significant impact of non-B HIV-1 variants genetic diversity in Gabon on plasma HIV-1 RNA quantitation

Evaluations of HIV-1 RNA viral load assays are lacking in Central Africa. The main objective of our study was to assess the reliability of HIV-1 RNA results obtained with three different assays for samples collected in Gabon. A total of 137 plasma specimens were assessed for HIV-1 RNA using the Abbott RealTime HIV-1® and Nuclisens HIV-1 EasyQ® version 2.0 assays. It included HIV-1 non-B samples (n = 113) representing six subtypes, 10 CRFs and 18 URFs from patients infected with HIV-1 and treated with antiretrovirals that were found HIV-1 RNA positive (≥300 copies/ml) with the Generic HIV viral load® assay; and samples (n = 24) from untreated individuals infected with HIV-1 but showing undetectable (<300 copies/ml) results with the Biocentric kit. For samples found positive with the Generic HIV viral load® test, correlation coefficients obtained between the three techniques were relatively low (R = 0.65 between Generic HIV viral load® and Abbott RealTime HIV-1®, 0.50 between Generic HIV viral load® and Nuclisens HIV-1 EasyQ®, and 0.66 between Abbott RealTime HIV-1® and Nuclisens HIV-1 EasyQ®). Discrepancies by at least one log10 were obtained for 19.6%, 33.7%, and 20% of samples, respectively, irrespective of genotype. Most of samples (22/24) from untreated study patients, found negative with the Biocentric kit, were also found negative with the two other techniques. In Central Africa, HIV-1 genetic diversity remains challenging for viral load testing. Further studies are required in the same area to confirm the presence of HIV-1 strains that are not amplified with at least two different viral load assays.