Comparison of the COBAS TAQMAN™ HIV-1 HPS with VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 Assay (bDNA) for plasma RNA quantitation in different HIV-1 subtypes

Nucleic acid testing and molecular characterization of HIV infections

Significant advances have been made in the molecular assays used for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which are crucial in preventing HIV transmission and monitoring disease progression. Molecular assays for HIV diagnosis have now reached a high degree of specificity, sensitivity and reproducibility, and have less operator involvement to minimize risk of contamination. Furthermore, analyses have been developed for the characterization of host gene polymorphisms and host responses to better identify and monitor HIV-1 infections in the clinic. Currently, molecular technologies including HIV quantitative and qualitative assays are mainly based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), transcription-mediated amplification (TMA), nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA), and branched chain (b) DNA methods and widely used for HIV detection and characterization, such as blood screening, point-of-care testing (POCT), pediatric diagnosis, acute HIV infection (AHI), HIV drug resistance testing, antiretroviral (AR) susceptibility testing, host genome polymorphism testing, and host response analysis. This review summarizes the development and the potential utility of molecular assays used to detect and characterize HIV infections.

Current challenges to viral load testing in the context of emerging genetic diversity of HIV-1

INTRODUCTION

One of the major characteristics of HIV-1 is its extreme genetic diversity. A key factor in assessing the sensitivity of a molecular-based assay measuring HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) in plasma is its ability to detect/quantify all (or most of) relevant HIV-1 genetic subtype/recombinant forms accurately.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of the current commercially available quantitative real-time assays (the Abbott RealTime HIV-1, Roche TaqMan HIV-1 versions 1.0 and 2.0, BioMérieux Nuclisens EasyQ HIV-1, Siemens VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 1.0 kinetic PCR, and Biocentric Generic HIV Viral Load assays). For each assay, studies from 2005 to 2010 assessing the impact of HIV-1 genetic diversity on the reliability of HIV-1 RNA quantification are described.

EXPERT OPINION

In light of HIV-1 genetic diversity, a general recommendation to favor one test over the other cannot categorically be made. Larger field evaluations of HIV-1 RNA assays should be conducted in areas where HIV-1 genetic diversity is the highest. The large-scale implementation of HIV-1 VL testing is urgently required in the developing world to change HIV infection from a likely death sentence into a manageable chronic infection, as done in Northern countries.

Correlation between human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA measurements obtained with dried blood spots and those obtained with plasma by use of Nuclisens EasyQ HIV-1 and Abbott RealTime HIV load tests

The plasma human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA load is used in the clinical routine for the monitoring of HIV infection and the patient's response to antiretroviral therapy. Other body fluids or dried blood spots (DBS) can be used, however, to assess the level of viremia. The use of DBS may be especially helpful for the monitoring of HIV-infected patients in resource-poor settings, where access to adequate laboratory facilities is often difficult. However, the correlation between the HIV RNA levels in plasma and those in DBSs has not been well established. Paired plasma and DBS samples obtained from HIV type 1 (HIV-1)-infected patients were tested for HIV RNA copy numbers by using two different commercial assays, the Nuclisens EasyQ HIV-1 (version 1.1) test (the Nuclisens test; Biomerieux) and the m2000rt RealTime HIV test (the m2000rt test; Abbott). Nucleic acid extraction was performed manually by using either the Nuclisens isolation kit (which uses the Boom methodology) or the m2000rt sample preparation kit (an iron particle-based method). A total of 103 paired plasma and DBS samples were tested. Viral load results were obtained for 97 (94.2%) samples with the Nuclisens isolation kit and 81 (78.6%) samples with the m2000rt kit. The overall correlation between the RNA loads in plasma and DBS was good, although better results were obtained by the Nuclisens test (R(2) = 0.87, P < 0.001) than by the m2000rt test (R(2) = 0.70, P < 0.001). While the specificities were excellent and similar for both the Nuclisens and the m2000rt tests (97.1% and 100%, respectively), the sensitivity was greater by the Nuclisens test than by the m2000rt test (75.8% and 56.6%, respectively). Overall, the viral loads in DBS tended to be lower than those in plasma, with mean differences of 0.3 log unit (standard deviation, 0.5 log unit) and 0.76 log unit (standard deviation, 0.8 log unit) for the Nuclisens and the m2000rt tests, respectively. The levels of agreement between the measurements in plasma and DBS were assessed by using the Bland-Altman plot for each assay. The Nuclisens test gave results within its defined limits (-0.65 to 1.26) for 95.9% of the samples, while the m2000rt test gave results within its limits (-0.83 to 2.33) for 100% of the samples. In summary, the HIV-1 load can accurately be quantified by testing DBS by either the Nuclisens or the m2000rt test, although the Nuclisens test may outperform the m2000rt test when nucleic acids are extracted manually.

Molecular assays for monitoring HIV infection and antiretroviral therapy

Infection with HIV results in lifelong persistence of the virus in the body of infected persons, independent of antiretroviral treatment. Therefore, efficient and meaningful therapy monitoring has been developed since its introduction in the 1980s. Whereas, primarily, the measurement of the CD4 cell count was the most important clinical marker of disease progression, nowadays the estimation of plasma viral load with molecular methods plays a major role as a marker of therapy success. To optimize therapy changes in patients failing on antiretroviral therapy regimen, HIV-1 genotyping has been introduced and is now widely accepted as an additional diagnostic tool. Due to this increase in diagnostic parameters, clinicians and virologists have to cope with many different methods. This review should give a brief overview of the current commercially available assays for detection and quantification of HIV, as well as for HIV-1 genotypic resistance testing. Quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR, real-time PCR, nucleic acid sequence-based amplification and the branched DNA system are described in detail, and the advantages and disadvantages are discussed. In addition, two commercially available HIV-1 genotyping assays are compared. However, a general recommendation to favor one system over the other cannot be given, because the final decision of which system to use should be decided on the individual requirements.

Comparative evaluation of the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV type 1 test (CAP/CTM) and VERSANT HIV type 1 RNA 3.0 assay (bDNA) for quantifying HIV type 1 viral loads in China

In the present study, 277 clinical samples from untreated and treated HIV-1-infected patients with different clades were used to assess the agreement between the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 test (CAP/CTM) and VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 Assay (bDNA). A qualitative comparison of the results of the two assays showed concordance for 255 positive and 15 negative samples (94.95%, kappa = 0.798). However, seven samples with viral loads close to the lower limit of detection for CAP/CTM were negative by bDNA. A significant correlation (r = 0.881, p < 0.001) was observed for 253 samples with viral loads within the dynamic ranges of the two assays, and Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement (96.05%) between the two assays for these 253 samples [mean (+/-2 SD), 0.389(-0.385, 1.163)]. Furthermore, ART drugs had no impact on the performances of the two assays. For samples with different clades predominant in China, the fitted regression line differed significantly from the line of equality, although significant correlations (r = 0.850-0.891, p < 0.001) and good agreements (92.86-97.25%) were found for the two assays. The mean differences for clade B' and BC samples were significant (p < 0.01). Good precision for clade B' samples was achieved for the CAP/CTM (CV: 20.73%) and bDNA (CV: 12.19%) assays. Furthermore, for clades B', BC, and AE, both assays exhibited good linearities (r = 0.9773-0.9998). Thus, the CAP/CTM and bDNA assays could be useful for quantifying HIV-1 RNA in routine clinical samples and monitoring viral loads in treated and untreated HIV-infected patients in China.

HIV-2 diagnosis and quantification in high-risk patients

Current diagnostic assays for HIV-1 do not always test for the presence of HIV-2 in the United States. We present the case of a patient from Cape Verde, who was admitted to our hospital with rapidly deteriorating neurological function and multiple white matter lesions on MRI likely secondary to progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Initially, the patient had a positive EIA for HIV, but a negative HIV-1 Western Blot and no viral load detected on a branched-DNA assay. A repeat viral load by reverse transcriptase methodology (RT-DNA) detected 121,000 copies and an HIV-2 Western Blot was positive. The case highlights an extremely rare presentation of HIV-2 with severe neurological disease. We discuss the different tests available for the diagnosis and monitoring of HIV-2 in the United States.

Superiority of infectivity-based over particle-based methods for quantitation of drug resistant HIV-1 as inocula for cell cultures

Performance of phenotypic assays and replication capacity assays require normalization of virus input. Therefore, quantitation of HIV-1 in supernatants to inoculate cell cultures is an important step. Since the gold standard for the determination of infectivity, the tissue culture infectious dose 50% (TCID50) is time-consuming, several other methods are in use. This study evaluated methods for the quantitation of drug resistant viruses in cell culture supernatants. The compared methods were based on the detection of viral structural components like genomic RNA or p24 antigen (CA-p24) (particle-based), the determination of reverse transcriptase (RT) activity, and methods based on the detection of viral infectivity like LTR-induced beta-galactosidase (beta-gal) activity and the TCID50 (infectivity-based). Significant correlations were observed between beta-gal activity and TCID50, and between CA-p24 and viral RNA. RT activity did not correlate with any other method. However, RT activity correlated significantly with infectivity when non-resistant subtype-B isolates were analyzed. In contrast to viral infectivity, CA-p24 exhibited a long half life and accumulated in cell culture, resulting in decreasing ratios of infectious virions to CA-p24 over time. As a consequence, relative replication capacities of drug resistant viruses were only determined reliably if the input virus was normalized according to infectivity. In conclusion, RT activity seems to be feasible for non-resistant subtype-B viruses but may be of limited use for non-B subtypes and for drug resistant viruses. Methods determining infectivity are most suitable for quantitation of cell culture inocula, whereas particle-based assays are more appropriate for quantitation of virus production during an experiment.