Performance of a commercial assay for detecting and quantifying HEV RNA in faeces

Evaluation of an automated platform for the detection of HEV RNA in plasma and stool

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the performance of the automated Altostar HEV RNA platform for detecting HEV RNA.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Clinical performance was determined by testing 81 plasma samples and 10 fecal samples manually quantified previously with the Realstar RT-PCR assay using the Magnapure instrument for extraction. The assays were concordant for 79/81 plasma samples (97.5%) and 10/10 (100%) fecal samples. The two plasma samples that tested negative with the Altostar assay had a very low HEV RNA concentration (1.6 and 1.4 log10 IU/ml). Quantitative results obtained with the automated platform and the manual workflow were highly correlated (ρ= 0.98, p<0.01). The intra-run and inter-run standard deviation were 0.09 IU/ml and 0.13 IU/ml respectively. The assay was linear from 2 to 6 log IU/ml. The limit of detection determined by Probit analysis with the WHO HEV RNA standard was 7.6 [95% CI: 4.4-52.5] IU/ml.

CONCLUSIONS

The Altostar platform enables highly accurate testing for the detection of HEV RNA in stool and the quantification of HEV RNA in plasma. This allowed us to shorten turnaround times and to save time for the technical staff.

Significant compartment-specific impact of different RNA extraction methods and PCR assays on the sensitivity of hepatitis E virus detection

BACKGROUND

RNA detection in plasma/stool is the gold-standard for diagnosis of hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection. The impact of viral extraction methods on HEV RNA detection is poorly investigated.

METHODS

We determined the limit of detection of the RealStar HEV RT-PCR V2.0 Kit (altona Diagnostics, RS) utilizing 3 RNA extraction methods (COBAS^® AmpliPrep Total Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit, TNAi Roche; MagNA Pure 96 DNA, Viral NA SV Kit, MgP; QIAamp Viral RNA mini Kit Qiagen; VRK) in plasma and stool. The most sensitive method was evaluated in a total of 307 longitudinal samples of patients with HEV infection (acute = 18/chronic = 36) and compared to results with the former diagnostic standard of our centre (TNAi/FastTrack Diagnostic; FTD).

RESULTS

The plasma-LOD was 49, 94 and 329 IU/mL for extraction with MgP, VRK and TNAi respectively. In stool, the LOD was 21 IU/mL, 528 IU/mL and indefinable for extraction with TNAi, VRK and MgP respectively. Utilizing longitudinal patient plasma samples, MgP/RS revealed 56 HEV RNA-positive samples in 158 negative samples as determined by TNAi/FTD. In stool, from 37 HEV negative samples (TNAi/FTD), 15 were positive with TNAi/RS. At end of treatment, 8 out of 27 chronically infected patients were RNA positive with MgP/RS, while classified negative with TNAi/FTD. A relapse occurred in 3 of these patients.

CONCLUSION

Different methods for RNA extraction and quantification have a significant, compartment-specific impact on the sensitivity of HEV detection. Knowledge about the favourable combinations of extraction and quantification has important implications for diagnosis and patients receiving antiviral therapy.

Performance of Roche qualitative HEV assay on the cobas 6800 platform for quantitative measurement of HEV RNA

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is an increasingly recognized cause of acute and chronic hepatitis in high-income countries and is the most frequent cause of acute viral hepatitis in many European countries. Appropriate tools to detect and quantify HEV RNA are needed. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Roche cobas® HEV assay and compare it with the Fast Track Diagnostics (FTD) Hepatitis E RNA assay.

METHODS

HEV viral load determination and lower limit of detection (LOD, defined as the lowest amount of viral copies that could be detected in 95 % of repeats) were assessed using a WHO standard dilution panel, testing 240 samples of various concentrations. Reproducibility was tested at three different concentration levels, for different genotypes, and with different sample types (serum, plasma) in 30 samples. Sample stability was analyzed after three freeze/thaw cycles in 25 samples.

RESULTS

Cobas HEV assay showed a strong linear relationship between log of HEV WHO dilution series and Ct values over the reportable range from 200-5000 IU/mL HEV RNA copies. The amplification efficiency was higher than 92 %. LOD was 22 IU/mL (95 % CI: 17.4-31.8) and reproducibility tests showed a 100 % nucleic acid test (NAT) reactivity of cobas HEV for WHO dilution series (range 200-5000 IU/mL, n = 90). Cobas HEV assay detected all different HEV genotypes from biobank samples irrespective of the sample type. NAT reactivity of cobas HEV was not affected by three freeze/thaw cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Roche cobas HEV assay is a powerful NAT tool in terms of robustness, reproducibility and linearity. It is a feasible alternative for high-volume testing.

Emerging hepatitis E virus compared with hepatitis A virus: A new sanitary challenge

Hepatitis A (HAV) and E (HEV) viruses are able to cause liver disease in humans. Among the five classical hepatotropic viruses, they are mainly transmitted via the fecal-oral route. Historically, many similarities have thus been described between them according to their incidence and their pathogenicity, especially in countries with poor sanitary conditions. However, recent advances have provided new insights, and the gap is widening between them. Indeed, while HAV infection incidence tends to decrease in developed countries along with public health improvement, HEV is currently considered as an underdiagnosed emerging pathogen. HEV autochthonous infections are increasingly observed and are mainly associated with zoonotic transmissions. Extra hepatic signs resulting in neurological or renal impairments have also been reported for HEV, as well as a chronic carrier state in immunocompromised patients, arguing in favor of differential pathogenesis between those two viruses. Recent molecular tools have allowed studies of viral genome variability and investigation of links between viral plasticity and clinical evolution. The identification of key functional mutations in viral genomes may improve the knowledge of their clinical impact and is analyzed in depth in the present review.