A European multicientre study on the comparison of HIV-1 viral loads between VERIS HIV-1 Assay and Roche COBAS® TAQMAN® HIV-1 test, Abbott RealTime HIV-1 Assay, and Siemens VERSANT HIV-1 Assay

Evaluation of the ELITechGroup solution for plasma HIV-1 RNA quantification

In the last few years, many manufacturers have developed new kits for plasma HIV-1 RNA quantification. Recently, a solution consisting of the ELITe InGenius® instrument and the HIV1 ELITe MGB®kit has been commercialized worldwide. Our aim was to compare its clinical performance with the Aptima® HIV-1 Quant Dx kit by Hologic, on a panel of HIV-1 group M circulating variants, representative of viral load levels found during the pre- and post-treatment follow-up of patients. The linearity was evaluated on the AcroMetrix® HIV-1 Panel. Clinical specificity was evaluated on 100 plasma samples negative for HIV; and clinical sensitivity and sequential follow-up were evaluated on 166 HIV-1 positive plasma samples from 126 patients. The linearity data showed a difference obtained for each point of less than 0.2 Log cp/mL. No amplification was found for the 100 HIV negative clinical specimens. The overall agreement between the two kits was 83.7 %; the differences corresponded to a slightly higher detection for the Aptima kit (with more samples detected below the lower limit of quantification). A Bland & Altman analysis of the quantifiable samples showed a mean difference of -0.05 Log and Spearman's coefficient was 0.975. Only six samples presented discrepancies (above 0.5 Log), but these differences were overall similar between the two kits. Our study has shown that the HIV1 ELITe MGB® Kit can be successfully used for the monitoring of patients infected with various epidemic HIV-1 strains, and for the precise quantification of the viral load.

Evaluation of a novel in-house HIV-1 genotype drug resistance assay using clinical samples in China

Background

HIV drug resistance poses a major challenge for anti-retroviral treatment (ART) and the prevention and control of HIV epidemic.

Objective

The study aims to establish a novel in-house assay with high efficiency, named AP in- house method, that would be suitable for HIV-1 drug resistance detection in China.

Methods

An in-house HIV-1 genotyping method was used to sequence the partial pol gene from 60 clinical plasma samples; the results of our test were compared with a commercial ViroSeq HIV-1 genotyping system.

Results

Among sixty samples, 58(96.7%) were successfully amplified by AP in-house method, five of them harbored viral load below 1,000 copies/ml. The genotype distribution was 43.1% CRF07_BC (25/58), 39.7% CRF01_AE (23/58), 6.9% CRF55_01B (4/58), 5.2% subtype B (3/58) and 5.2% CRF08_BC (3/58). Compared with that of the ViroSeq system, the consistent rate of these nucleotides and amino acids obtained by AP in-house method was up to 99.5 ± 0.4% and 99.5 ± 0.4%, respectively. A total of 290 HIV-1 drug resistance mutations were identified by two methods, including 126 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), 145 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and 19 protease inhibitors (PIs) resistance mutations. Out of them, 94.1% (273/290) were completely concordant between the AP in-house method and the ViroSeq system.

Conclusion

Overall, the evaluation of AP in-house method provided comparable results to those of the ViroSeq system on diversified HIV-1 subtypes in China.

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.

Performance comparison of new Veris and Xpert random access HIV-1 RNA quantification assays

Background

Recent systems for Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 (HIV-1) viral load (VL) monitoring allow one-by-one analysis and fast turn-around-time for results. VL measurement on two rapid recently commercialized systems, GeneXpert (Cepheid) and Veris (Beckman Coulter) was compared to classical methods.

Methods

Plasma specimen from HIV-1 (group M) positive patients (n = 129) initially quantified with Abbott RealTime HIV-1 and Generic HIV-VL Biocentric assays were retrospectively tested with GeneXpert and Veris.

Results

Valid results on all techniques were obtained for 116/129 specimens composed of 89 Abbott quantifiable VL (38 B, 51 non-B subtypes) [range: 2.09–7.20 log cp/mL] and 27 plasma (9 B, 18 non-B) with Abbott-VL below the limit of quantification (LLQ). All techniques showed good correlation and agreement with a lowest Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.86. Compared to Abbott, the mean bias was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.25–0.45), 0.44 (0.36–0.53) and − 0.04 (− 0.13–0.05) for Biocentric, Beckman and Cepheid, respectively. A difference over 0.5 log cp/mL between VL-quantification of the same sample was observed for 19, 9 and 6 samples with Biocentric, Beckman and Cepheid, respectively. No influence of HIV-1 subtypes on VL was identified. Among 29 samples below LLQ on Abbott, only one was detected and quantified with the Veris assay (38 cp/mL), none with Cepheid.

Conclusion

Both random access systems from Cepheid and Beckman appear well designed for quantifying plasma HIV-1 VL, are easy to handle, fast and fully automated. The slight observed differences suggest to follow the current guidelines recommending the use of the same technique over time for patient viral load monitoring.