Comparative evaluation of two branched-DNA human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA quantification assays with lower detection limits of 50 and 500 copies per milliliter

A Tolerance Interval Approach for Assessment of Agreement with Left Censored Data

We describe a tolerance interval approach for assessing agreement in method comparison data that may be left censored. We model the data using a mixed model and discuss a Bayesian and a frequentist methodology for inference. A simulation study suggests that the Bayesian approach with noninformative priors provides a good alternative to the frequentist one for moderate sample sizes as the latter tends to be liberal. Both may be used for sample sizes 100 or more, with the Bayesian one being slightly conservative. The proposed methods are illustrated with real data involving comparison of two assays for quantifying viral load in HIV patients.

Determinants of long-term highly active antiretroviral treatment efficacy

OBJECTIVES

Predictors of the efficacy of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have been investigated in several studies. To increase current knowledge, the study aimed to acquire comprehensive data over an extended observation time, to obtain information on possible performance differences among individual drugs, and to identify factors with influence on the initial response to a HAART regimen and the sustainability of the response.

METHODS

The data were obtained from a prospective, single University Medical School HIV cohort. Clinical, laboratory, and treatment parameters for 475 patients were collected over 4.5 years. HAART efficacy was determined by analysis of variance and multivariate survival analysis.

RESULTS

The overall initial complete response (CR) (<500 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL) was 76.3%. Use of indinavir [odds ratio (OR)=2.747, P=0.0009] and the number of new nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (OR=1.862, P=0.0017) were positively associated with CR, while initial peripheral blood HIV RNA concentration (OR=0.383, P<0.0001), use of saquinavir hard gel capsules (OR=0.531, P=0.0302), the number of successive HAART regimens (OR=0.631, P<0.0001), and the number of previously used NRTIs (OR=0.728, P=0.0081) were negatively associated with CR. Sustainability of CR was positively correlated with use of indinavir [hazard ratio of relapse (HR)=0.255, P<0.0001] and haemoglobin levels (HR=0.873, P=0.0124), but negatively correlated with initial HIV RNA concentration (HR=1.273, P=0.0003) and the number of previously used NRTIs (HR=1.587, P<0.0001). A higher number of consecutive HAART regimens was associated with a markedly reduced CR, but with only a slightly higher risk of relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial response to HAART, as well as long-term efficacy, depends strongly on a few fundamental parameters that can easily be assessed in a clinical setting. There is a need for effective suppression of HIV replication over decades, and these factors should be considered early in treatment planning to identify patients with an unfavourable profile of risk factors for treatment failure.

Underevaluation of HIV-1 plasma viral load by a commercially available assay in a cluster of patients infected with HIV-1 A/G circulating recombinant form (CRF02)

The authors studied the correlation and agreement of commercially available assays in detection and quantification of the HIV-1 intersubtype A/G circulating recombinant form CRF02. The assays under comparison were Bayer Versant HIV-1 RNA, version 3.0; Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor, version 1.5 (standard procedure); and Organon Teknika NucliSens HIV-1 RNA QT. Plasma samples from 114 patients infected with CRF02 were tested by the three assays under standard conditions. Although correlation among the assays was high and statistically significant for subtype B and CRF02, in the latter instance, NucliSens measured average viral load values (3.29 +/- 0.71 log(10) copies/mL) about 4 and >8 times lower than those obtained by Versant (3.90 +/- 0.90 log(10) copies/mL) and Amplicor (4.22 +/- 1.05 log(10) copies/mL), respectively. Furthermore, in a statistically significant percentage of CRF02-harboring samples, NucliSens produced viral load values undetectable or 1 log(10) lower than those obtained in Versant and Amplicor assays. Altogether, these data underline a low performance of NucliSens in detecting and quantifying viremia in plasma samples harboring the CRF02. These results are potentially important as global distribution of new HIV-1 subtypes is expanding, and recombinant strains, particularly CRF02, are emerging and becoming highly prevalent.

Intrapatient diversity and its correlation with viral setpoint in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 CRF02_A/G-IbNG infection

The human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) viral setpoint during the disease-free interval has been strongly associated with future risk of disease progression. An awareness of the correlation between viral setpoint and HIV-1 genetic evolution over time is important in the understanding of viral dynamics and infection. We examined genetic diversity in HIV-1 CRF02_A/G-IbNG-infected seroincident women in Dakar, Senegal; determined whether a viral setpoint kinetic pattern existed for CRF02_A/G-IbNG during the disease-free interval; and correlated viral load level and diversity. Samples were drawn during the disease-free interval from consenting CRF02_A/G-IbNG-infected, antiretroviral therapy-naïve female commercial sex workers in Dakar, Senegal. Based on sequential plasma RNA values, low and high viral setpoint groups were established. Intrapatient diversity and divergence over time was determined from earlier and later time point DNA samples from each person. Most individuals followed the viral setpoint paradigm. For each 1/-/log(10) copy/ml of plasma increase in viral load, intrapatient diversity increased by 1.4% (P = 0.028). A greater diversification rate was observed in the high viral setpoint group than in the low viral setpoint group (P = 0.01). Greater nucleotide (P = 0.015) and amino acid (P = 0.048) divergences and a greater nucleotide divergence rate (P = 0.03) were found in the high viral setpoint group. There was no difference between the groups in the ratio of the number of nonsynonymous substitutions per nonsynonymous site to the number of synonymous substitutions per synonymous site. The greater intrapatient diversity, divergence, and diversification rates observed in the high viral setpoint group supports the notion that diversity is driven by cycles of viral replication resulting in accumulated mutations. Recognizing diversity potential based on viral load levels in individuals may inform the design of vaccines and therapies.

Comparative performance of three viral load assays on human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates representing group M (subtypes A to G) and group O: LCx HIV RNA quantitative, AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5, and Quantiplex HIV-1 RNA version 3.0

The performance of the LCx HIV RNA Quantitative (LCx HIV), AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (MONITOR v1.5), and Quantiplex HIV-1 RNA version 3.0 (bDNA v3.0) viral load assays was evaluated with 39 viral isolates (3 A, 7 B, 6 C, 4 D, 8 E, 4 F, 1 G, 4 mosaic, and 2 group O). Quantitation across the assay dynamic ranges was assessed using serial fivefold dilutions of the viruses. In addition, sequences of gag-encoded p24 (gag p24), pol-encoded integrase, and env-encoded gp41 were analyzed to assign group and subtype and to assess nucleotide mismatches at primer and probe binding sites. For group M isolates, quantification was highly correlated among all three assays. In contrast, only the LCx HIV assay reliably quantified group O isolates. The bDNA v3.0 assay detected but consistently underquantified group O viruses, whereas the MONITOR v1.5 test failed to detect group O viruses. Analysis of target regions revealed fewer primer or probe mismatches in the LCx HIV assay than in the MONITOR v1.5 test. Consistent with the high level of nucleotide conservation is the ability of the LCx HIV assay to quantify efficiently human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M and the genetically diverse group O.

Multicenter comparison of Roche COBAS AMPLICOR MONITOR version 1.5, Organon Teknika NucliSens QT with Extractor, and Bayer Quantiplex version 3.0 for quantification of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA in plasma

The performance and characteristics of Roche COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (CA MONITOR 1.5) UltraSensitive (usCA MONITOR 1. 5) and Standard (stCA MONITOR 1.5) procedures, Organon Teknika NucliSens HIV-1 RNA QT with Extractor (NucliSens), and Bayer Quantiplex HIV RNA version 3.0 (bDNA 3.0) were compared in a multicenter trial. Samples used in this study included 460 plasma specimens from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1)-infected persons, 100 plasma specimens from HIV antibody (anti-HIV)-negative persons, and culture supernatants of HIV-1 subtype A to E isolates diluted in anti-HIV-negative plasma. Overall, bDNA 3.0 showed the least variation in RNA measures upon repeat testing. For the Roche assays, usCA MONITOR 1.5 displayed less variation in RNA measures than stCA MONITOR 1.5. NucliSens, at an input volume of 2 ml, showed the best sensitivity. Deming regression analysis indicated that the results of all three assays were significantly correlated (P < 0.0001). However, the mean difference in values between CA MONITOR 1.5 and bDNA 3.0 (0.274 log(10) RNA copies/ml; 95% confidence interval, 0.192 to 0.356) was significantly different from 0, indicating that CA MONITOR 1.5 values were regularly higher than bDNA 3.0 values. Upon testing of 100 anti-HIV-negative plasma specimens, usCA MONITOR 1.5 and NucliSens displayed 100% specificity, while bDNA 3.0 showed 98% specificity. NucliSens quantified 2 of 10 non-subtype B viral isolates at 1 log(10) lower than both CA MONITOR 1.5 and bDNA 3.0. For NucliSens, testing of specimens with greater than 1,000 RNA copies/ml at input volumes of 0.1, 0.2, and 2.0 ml did not affect the quality of results. Additional factors differing between assays included specimen throughput and volume requirements, limit of detection, ease of execution, instrument work space, and costs of disposal. These characteristics, along with assay performance, should be considered when one is selecting a viral load assay.