Comparison of on-treatment HCV RNA during direct antiviral therapy using two different COBAS TaqMan HCV assays

Performance evaluation of the DAAN HCV assay for quantification of hepatitis C virus RNA and its comparison with COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV Quantitative Test, v2.0

Background

The Daan HCV RNA quantitative assay was a recently developed kit with high sensitivity for the detection of HCV RNA. We aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of the Daan HCV RNA quantitative assay and compare it with the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV Quantitative Test, v2.0.

Method

WHO HCV RNA standard, NIBSC 06/102 standard, and CLSI EP documents were used to evaluate the precision, accuracy, linearity, anti‐interference ability, and cross‐reactivity of the Daan HCV RNA quantitative assay. Overall 198 clinical serum specimens were used to make comparison between the Daan HCV RNA quantitative assay and the Roche Cobas test.

Results

The within‐run precision (S_within), and total precision (S_total) for 6.11 log IU/mL, 4.22 log IU/mL, and 2.32 log IU/mL HCV RNA were 0.13 and 0.15, 0.07 and 0.09, and 0.11 and 0.10, respectively. The linear range was 20‐10⁸ IU/mL, and the limit of detection was 15 IU/mL. It did not display any interference with commonly encountered conditions and cross‐reactivity with some common virus. A good agreement was observed between the Daan HCV RNA quantitative assay and the Roche Cobas test.

Conclusion

The Daan HCV RNA quantitative assay has shown satisfactory performances and excellent agreement with COBAS HCV Quantitative Test on clinical specimens with lower cost, which provides an alternative choice for the diagnosis and monitoring of HCV infection in developing countries.

Clinical utility of hepatitis C virus core antigen assay in the monitoring of direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus core antigen (HCV Ag) assay has been proposed as a more economical alternative to HCV RNA detection. This study aimed to investigate the clinical utility of HCV Ag assay in the monitoring of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C patients.

METHODS

We analyzed serum samples from 110 patients treated with paritaprevir/ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir (PrOD) with or without ribavirin. The levels for both HCV Ag and HCV RNA assessed by COBAS TaqMan HCV (CTM) Test or Abbott RealTime HCV (ART) assay were evaluated at baseline, week 2, 4, and 12 during treatment and 12 weeks after completion.

RESULTS

Baseline HCV Ag levels showed good correlations with HCV viral load (r = 0.879; p<0.001); whereas the correlation was slightly stronger with CTM test than with ART assay (p = 0.074). The concordance of HCV Ag and HCV RNA undetectability was significantly better in CTM test than in ART assay at week 2 (p = 0.003) and week 4 (p = 0.003). A sustained viral response 12 weeks off therapy (SVR12) was achieved in 108 patients (98%); the HCV Ag assay identified 99% of these patients. Both undetectability of serum HCV Ag and HCV RNA had high positive predictive value at week 2 (98% vs. 100%) and at week 4 (97% vs. 99%) in predicting SVR12.

CONCLUSIONS

HCV Ag assay may be a feasible alternative to HCV RNA for the determination of SVR12 in patients treated with DAAs.

Pangenotypic direct acting antivirals for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent approval and adoption of pangenotypic direct acting antivirals (DAAs) necessitated a revision of the 2015 World Health Organization guidelines for the management of persons with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and relevant conference proceedings to identify randomized and non-randomized trials, as well as prospective observational studies of DAAs. The proportions of persons with events were pooled for sustained virological response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12), discontinuations due to adverse events (DAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and all-cause mortality. Analyses were stratified by HCV genotype and antiviral treatment experience, with subgroup analyses based on presence of cirrhosis and HIV-HCV coinfection.

FINDINGS

The evidence base consisted of 238 publications describing 142 studies. In the overall analysis, which included all persons irrespective of treatment experience or comorbidities, the pooled proportion achieving SVR12 exceeded 0.94 for all pangenotypic regimens across genotypes 1, 2, and 4. Some heterogeneity may have led to lower SVR rates in persons with genotype 3 infection. High SVR12 (>0.90) was observed in persons with genotype 1 infection with cirrhosis, though evidence varied and was limited for genotypes 2-4. Evidence was sparse for persons with HIV-HCV coinfection. All regimens were associated with small proportions of persons with DAEs, SAEs, or all-cause mortality.

INTERPRETATION

Based on this and other supporting evidence, the WHO issued updated guidelines with a conditional recommendation, based on moderate quality evidence, for the use of pangenotypic DAA regimens for persons with chronic HCV infection aged 18 years and older (July 2018).

FUNDING

This study was funded by the World Health Organization.

Utility of the new cobas HCV test for viral load monitoring during direct-acting antiviral therapy

Background

The COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan assay HCV (CAP/CTM) is widely used in clinical routine for HCV testing. Recently, the new cobas HCV test was established for high throughput testing with minimal operator intervention. As different assays may yield different quantitative/qualitative results that possibly impact treatment decisions, the aim of this study was to externally evaluate the cobas HCV test performance in comparison to CAP/CTM in a clinically relevant setting.

Methods

Serum samples were obtained from 270 patients who received direct acting antiviral therapy with different treatment regimens at two study sites (Hannover and Frankfurt) in 2016. Overall, 1545 samples (baseline, on-treatment and follow-up) were tested in parallel by both assays.

Results

The mean difference between cobas HCV and CAP/CTM for the quantification of HCV RNA was 0.008 log₁₀ IU/ml HCV RNA (95% limits of agreement: -0.02–0.036) showing excellent agreement of both assays. With respect to clinical cut offs (HCV RNA detectable vs. target not detected and HCV RNA above the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) vs. <LLOQ), discordant results were obtained in 9.5% and 4.6%, respectively; the greatest differences were observed during early stages of antiviral therapy (week 1, week 2 and week 4), but none were statistically significant. Overall percent agreement for SVR between cobas HCV and CAP/CTM at the 15 IU/ml cutoff was 99.2% (95%CI 92.7%-100%).

Conclusion

The performance of the new cobas HCV test was comparable to CAP/CTM in a clinical setting representing a large patient population with HCV GT 1 and 3 treated with DAAs.

Analytical performance of four molecular platforms used for HIV-1, HBV and HCV viral load determinations

Background: Viral load (VL) quantification is important for the management of HBV, HCV, and HIV-1-infected patients. Several semi- or fully automated systems and assays are available that can be used to measure VL for these and other targets. Research design and methods: We assessed the accuracy, genotype/subtype inclusivity, and precision of four VL assays for three viral targets: cobas 4800 (Roche), cobas 6800 (Roche), Aptima (Hologic) and VERIS (Beckman), using WHO standards, cell culture supernatants and clinical samples. Results: Most results were close to expected values, except for significant under-quantification of HIV-1 group O, HBV genotype C, and D at high VL, and HCV genotype 3 by Aptima, and of HIV-1 CRF01_AE and group N and HCV genotype 3 by VERIS. Precision was comparable between tests except for VERIS HCV, which showed more variability. Aptima and cobas 6800 results agreed well with each other except HBV VL at lower VL (<10,000 IU/mL) where Aptima results tended to be higher. Conclusions: Results from different VL assays may not always agree in certain subsets of patients. Clinicians should we aware of these findings when making treatment decisions.