Detection and quantification of HBV and HCV in plasma samples by means of different molecular assays: Comparative study

INTRODUCTION

Viral load is a very useful marker for monitoring patients infected with HBV and HCV. This work compares assays based on transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) and on real-time PCR (RT-PCR) to verify whether they can be interchangeable.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A bicentric study, in which 147 plasma samples from patients infected with HBV and 229 with HCV were analyzed, was carried out. TMA-based assays (Aptima® HBV Quant and Aptima® HCV Quant Dx, employing Panther system (Hologic®)) and RT-PCR (COBAS® AmpliPrep/COBAS® TaqMan® and COBAS® 6800) were used and the degree of concordance between them was calculated.

RESULTS

Viral load was detected in both systems in 60 (40.82%) HBV samples (median log viral load: COBAS: 2.51IU/mL (IQR 2.20-3.17), Panther: 2.71IU/mL (IQR 2.21-3.22)) and in 39 (16.96%) HCV samples (median log viral load: COBAS: 3.93IU/mL (IQR 2.24-6.01), Panther: 3.80IU/mL (IQR 1.99-6.14)). The agreement between both systems was κ=0.943 for HBV and κ=0.925 for HCV. Comparison of viral load samples detected by both assays showed a hight correlation for HBV (R2=0.86) and for HCV (R2=0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Both TMA and RT-PCR based assays may be interchangeable for the management of patients infected with HBV and HCV.

Evaluation of the Aptima HBV Quant Assay Compared to Abbott RealTime M2000 HBV Quant Assay and Procleix Ultrio Plus dHBV Assay in Plasma Samples

Analytical performance of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA quantitative assay is critical for screening infection and initiating and monitoring antiviral treatment. In this study, the limit of detection (LoD) and linearity of Aptima HBV Quant assay were evaluated, and analytical performance was compared with that of the Abbott RealTime M2000 HBV Quant assay and the Procleix Ultrio Plus dHBV assay in plasma samples. The LoDs for genotypes B, C, and D plasma samples were 2.139 (1.531, 4.520), 3.120 (2.140, 7.373), and 3.330 (2.589, 4.907) IU/mL, respectively. The R² value fitted by linear regression of serially diluted samples less than 2,000 IU/mL was above 0.9. There was no difference in positive rate between Aptima and Abbott or between Aptima and Procleix. Quantitative results of Aptima and Abbott showed good correlation with an r of >0.9 using Spearman analysis, while the quantitative results of Aptima were slightly lower than those of Abbott. Usual mutations in the HBV S region had no impact on Aptima assay. This study showed that Aptima is a dual-targeted transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay suitable for HBV DNA detection in clinical practice, with quantitative performance comparable to that of the Abbott RealTime M2000 HBV Quant assay and qualitative performance comparable to that of the Procleix Ultrio Plus dHBV assay.

IMPORTANCE The Aptima HBV Quant assay (Hologic Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) is a dual-target real-time transcription-mediated amplification (RT-TMA) assay. This study aims to evaluate whether this assay is suitable for HBV DNA detection. As a result, the assay showed high sensitivity with LoDs below 3.5 IU/mL. The amplification efficiency of Aptima for samples below 2,000 IU/mL is adequate for clinical practice, with an R² of >0.9 fitted by linear regression. Usual mutations in the HBV S region did not affect the performance of Aptima. Moreover, its performance was comparable to the widely used Abbott RealTime M2000 HBV Quant assay for detecting HBV DNA in plasma specimens. Although not indicated for use as a diagnostic or blood screening assay, the Aptima HBV Quant assay demonstrated comparable qualitative performance to the Procleix Ultrio Plus dHBV system.

Performance Evaluation of the Aptima Assays in Comparison with the cobas 6800 Assays for the Detection of HIV-1, HBV, and HCV in Clinical Samples

Background

Accurate and consistent viral load (VL) quantitation of HIV type 1 (HIV-1), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is important for diagnosis and clinical monitoring. Assay results have to be concordant and compatible across laboratories. We evaluated the performance of three Aptima assays (Hologic, San Diego, CA, USA) and compared their VL values with corresponding cobas 6800 assay (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) results, using 840 clinical samples.

Methods

The correlation between VL results obtained using the two assays was evaluated in terms of analytical sensitivity, precision/reproducibility, linearity, and cross-reactivity. Agreement rates were determined using kappa statistics. The overall agreement of VL values was examined using Passing–Bablok regression analysis.

Results

All CVs were within 5%; the assays had good precision for detecting all three viruses. The linearity of quantitation assessed using three AccuSpan linearity panels (Seracare, Milford, MA, USA), was excellent for the Aptima assays. For HIV-1 and HCV, the results of both assays showed excellent agreement (κ=0.89 and 0.90, respectively) while for HBV, the results showed good agreement (κ=0.69). For analytical sensitivity, the VLs required for a 100% detection rate of HIV-1, HBV, and HCV were 20 copies/mL, 7.5 IU/mL, and 5.0 IU/mL, respectively. The results for HIV-1, HBV, and HCV obtained using both assays correlated strongly (R²=0.97, 0.93, and 0.95, respectively).

Conclusions

The cobas 6800 and Aptima assays, with fully automated and high-throughput molecular platforms for HIV-1, HBV, and HCV VL measurements, show good analytical performance and a strong correlation between results. The study results suggest that the assays can be used interchangeably for long-term monitoring of chronic infections.

Biomarkers for hepatitis B virus replication: an overview and a look to the future

INTRODUCTION

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a major public health issue but there are no powerful drugs to eradicate the virus. HBV markers including HBsAg, HBcrAg, HBV RNA, HBcAb, and HBV DNA are becoming promising biomarkers to reflect the natural phases of chronic HBV infection and predict the outcome of anti-HBV treatment.

AREAS COVERED

The authors summarized the biomarkers of HBV replication and presented the current advances of these biomarkers on predicting the outcome of anti-HBV treatment and identifying the progression of chronic HBV infection.

EXPERT OPINION

HBsAg, HBcrAg, HBV RNA, HBcAb, and HBV DNA are noninvasive and feasible biomarkers for monitoring the process of anti-HBV therapy and predicting the progress of HBV infection. However, there are still no strong biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for clinical application. Combination of two or more HBV biomarkers, new technique for measuring HBV cccDNA, and searching novel HBV biomarkers are essential for anti-HBV treatment in the future.

HBV-RNA Co-amplification May Influence HBV DNA Viral Load Determination

Despite effective hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐DNA suppression, HBV RNA can circulate in patients receiving nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs). Current assays quantify HBV DNA by either real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which uses DNA polymerase, or transcription‐mediated amplification, which uses reverse‐transcriptase (RT) and RNA polymerase. We assessed the effect of RT capability on HBV‐DNA quantification in samples from three cohorts, including patients with quantified HBV RNA. We compared the HBV‐DNA levels by real‐time PCR (cobas HBV, Roche 6800/8800; Xpert HBV, Cepheid), transcription‐mediated amplification (Aptima HBV, Hologic), and real‐time PCR with added RT capability (cobas HBV+RT). In the first cohort (n = 45) followed over 192 weeks of NA therapy, on‐treatment HBV‐DNA levels were higher with cobas HBV+RT than cobas HBV (mean difference: 0.14 log₁₀ IU/mL). In a second cohort (n = 50) followed over 96 weeks of NA therapy, HBV‐DNA viral load was significantly higher with the cobas HBV+RT and Aptima HBV compared with the cobas HBV test at all time points after initiation of NA therapy (mean difference: 0.65‐1.16 log₁₀ IU/mL). A clinically significant difference was not detected between the assays at baseline. In a third cohort (n = 53), after a median of 2.2 years of NA therapy, we detected HBV RNA (median 5.6 log₁₀ copies/mL) in 23 patients (43.4%). Median HBV‐DNA levels by Aptima HBV were 2.4 versus less than 1 log₁₀ IU/mL in samples with HBV RNA and without HBV RNA, respectively (P = 0.0006). In treated patients with HBV RNA, Aptima HBV measured higher HBV‐DNA levels than Xpert HBV and cobas HBV. Conclusion: Tests including an RT step may overestimate HBV DNA, particularly in samples with low viral loads as a result of NA therapy. This overestimation is likely due to amplification of HBV RNA and may have an impact on clinical decisions.

Performance of the Xpert HBV Viral Load assay versus the Aptima Quant assay for quantifying hepatitis B virus DNA

Quantification of HBV DNA is used for initiating and monitoring antiviral treatment. We have evaluated the Xpert HBV Viral Load (VL) assay on the GeneXpert instrument. We estimated its limit of detection to be 7.5 IU/mL. Reproducibility was 1.1-12.7% as assessed by the coefficients of variation for 3 different samples. The assay was linear from 2 to 8 log₁₀ IU/mL for HBV genotypes A to F. Its clinical performance was evaluated by testing prospectively 100 HBV DNA-positive samples with the Xpert HBV VL and Aptima Quant HBV assays. The results from the 2 assays were correlated, with a modest bias (-0.10 log₁₀ IU/mL) between them by Bland-Altman analysis. Patient monitoring with 80 samples performed with both assays gave similar patient profiles with trends in the same direction. The Xpert HBV Viral load assay is reliable enough for quantifying HBV DNA in clinical practice.