Comparing Abbott m2000 RealTime HIV test and Roche COBAS Ampliprep/COBAS Taqman HIV test, v2.0 in treated HIV-1 B and non-B subjects with low viraemia

Real-world performance of the NeuMoDx™ HCV Quant Test for quantification of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-RNA

Quantification of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-RNA in serum or plasma samples is an essential parameter in HCV diagnostics. Here, the NeuMoDx™Molecular System (Qiagen) was tested for the most common HCV genotypes and compared to the cobas c6800 system (Roche). HCV-RNA from 131 plasma/serum samples from chronically infected patients was determined in parallel on the NeuMoDx and c6800 systems. Linearity was analysed using the four most common HCV genotypes (1-4) in our cohort. The coefficient of variation (CV) within (intra-assay) and between (inter-assay) runs was calculated based on HCV-RNA concentration. Quantitative HCV-RNA results were highly correlated on both test systems (R2 = 0.7947; y = 0.94 x + 0.37). On average, the NeuMoDx and c6800 HCV RNA levels showed a mean difference of only 0.05 log10 IU/mL but with a broad distribution (±1.2 2 x SD). The NeuMoDx demonstrated very good linearity across all HCV genotypes tested at concentrations between 1.7 and 6.2 log10 IU/mL (R2 range: 0.9257-0.9991) with the highest mean coefficient of determination for genotype 1 (R2 = 0.9909). The mean intra- and inter-assay CV for both serum and plasma samples was <5 %. The NeuMoDx HCV-RNA Assay demonstrates high subtype-independent comparability, linearity, and reproducibility for the quantification of HCV-RNA in serum and plasma samples from chronically infected patients.

Clinical performance of two new, fully integrated molecular platforms used for HIV-1, HBV and HCV viral load analysis, the NeuMoDx 288 and the Alinity m

BACKGROUND

Viral load (VL) determination in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is essential for proper patient management and follow-up. New molecular platforms have been developed to fully automate these diagnostic assays.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the clinical performance of HIV-1, HBV and HCV VL assays on the Alinity m (Abbott) and NeuMoDx (Qiagen) molecular platforms.

METHOD

Test panels of the three viruses have been compiled of 100 plasma and/or serum samples per target containing non-detectable, non-quantifiable and quantifiable VLs. All samples were retrospectively tested on the Alinity m and NeuMoDx platforms according to manufacturers' instructions.

RESULTS

A total of 74, 86 and 66 samples with valid results for both platforms were included in the HIV-1, HBV and HCV analysis respectively. Overall qualitative agreement of the assays on both platforms was 78% for HIV-1, 93% for HBV and 100% for HCV. Quantitative agreement (less than 0.5 log difference) was shown to be 68% for HIV-1, 68% for HBV and 94% for HCV.

CONCLUSION

The Alinity m and NeuMoDx HCV assay have a comparable performance. Quantification differences in the HIV-1 assay were mostly apparent in the lower VLs and under-quantification of the NeuMoDx HBV assay was observed.

Fifteen years of the proficiency testing program for HIV-1 viral load testing laboratories in China, 2005-2019

BACKGROUND

HIV-1 viral load (VL) testing is essential for monitoring the effects of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients. In order to identify factors that impact testing performance of HIV-1 VL testing laboratories, this study performed a retrospective analysis on data from the domestic HIV-1 VL proficiency testing (PT) program in China during 2005 to 2019.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted on testing results of 155 PT panel specimens that were distributed to HIV-1 VL testing laboratories nationwide during 2005 to 2019. Follow-up on-site inspection records on unqualified laboratories were also analyzed.

RESULTS

By 2019, 267 HIV-1 VL testing laboratories in China enrolled in the national PT assessment. Overall, HIV-1 VL testing performance has been consistently good after 2012, with less than 5% of participants reporting an unqualified score. Unsatisfactory equipment conditions and poor laboratory administration were the two main reasons causing unqualified scores in the PT assessment. Interestingly, we found that HIV-1 VL testing laboratories had better performance in the CDC system than in hospitals. In analysis on the variance of specimen testing results by different assays, we found that variation in results existed across different assay platforms, and HIV-1 VL testing assays based on real-time PCR technology showed comparatively smaller inter-laboratory variability.

CONCLUSIONS

To maintain high performance in HIV-1 VL testing laboratories, it is important to strengthen laboratory management and preserve equipment conditions. Due to the variation of testing results among different assay platforms, we suggest using the same assay platform for longitudinal monitoring of patient viral load.

Comparison between Roche and Xpert in HIV-1 RNA quantitation: A high concordance between the two techniques except for a CRF02_AG subtype variant with high viral load titters detected by Roche but undetected by Xpert

BACKGROUND

HIV-1 viral load (VL) testing is important to predict viral progression and to monitor the response to antiretroviral therapy. New HIV-1 VL tests are continuously introduced to the market. Their performance is usually compared to Abbott and/or Roche HIV-1 VL assays, as reference. The Xpert HIV-1 VL test was recently introduced, but its performance compared to Roche has not been sufficiently studied.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the Xpert assay with Roche and to assess its use in the HIV clinical laboratory.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 383 plasma samples of HIV-1 infected patients previously tested by Roche, were retrospectively tested by Xpert to determine concordance between the two assays. Samples included a diversity of HIV-1 subtypes and a wide range of VLs.

RESULTS

There was a high concordance between the two assays, except for a CRF02_AG subtype variant with high VL titters, that was detected by Roche but undetected by Xpert. The 5' long terminal repeat gene region of this virus, targeted by the Xpert assay, was amplified and sequenced. A 25 nucleotide insert was identified, but was unmatched to any known sequences of HIV-1. This particular insert, however could not explain the false-negativity by the Xpert assay.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underlines the challenge to routine VL testing due to the high genetic diversity of HIV-1. Clinicians should, therefore be advised that a negative VL in cases where the clinical picture does not match the laboratory report, might in fact be, a false-negative result of the VL assay.

Evaluation of the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx Assay Using Plasma and Dried Blood Spots

HIV-1 RNA quantitation in plasma, or virus load testing, is the primary method by which the response to antiretroviral therapy is monitored. Here we describe evaluation of the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx assay (Aptima) performed on the automated Panther system. The clinical performance of Aptima was compared to that of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 Test v2.0 (CAP/CTM) using 162 EDTA plasma samples collected from patients undergoing HIV-1 monitoring. Overall agreement was 84.0% (136/162), with a kappa statistic of 0.723 (standard error, 0.047; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.630 to 0.815), indicating substantial agreement. Using the 86 clinical samples quantifiable by both methods, Passing-Bablok regression revealed a regression line of Y = (1.069 × X) - 0.346 (95% CI of the slope [1.003 to 1.139] and intercept [-0.666 to -0.074]), and Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference (Aptima-CAP/CTM) of -0.075 log10 copies/ml (95% limits of agreement of -0.624 to 0.475), consistent with negative bias. Comparison of Aptima results for paired dried blood spot (DBS) and plasma specimens archived from participants in the Peninsula AIDS Research Cohort Study (PARC) demonstrated an overall agreement of 94.7% (90/95) when 1,000 copies/ml was used as the threshold. In conclusion, the Aptima HIV-1 Quant Dx assay provides a suitable alternative for HIV-1 monitoring in plasma and DBS.