ABSTRACT
The need for viral load (VL) monitoring of HIV patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited settings (RLS) has become apparent with studies showing the limitations of immunological monitoring. We compared the Abbott m2000 Real-Time (Abbott) HIV-1 assay with the Roche AMPLICOR Monitor v1.5 (Roche) HIV-1 assay over a range of VL concentrations. Three hundred and eleven plasma samples were tested, including 164 samples from patients on ART ≥ six months and 147 from ART-naïve patients. The Roche assay detected ≥400 copies/mL in 158 (50.8%) samples. Of these, Abbott produced 145 (91.8%) detectable results ≥400 copies/mL; 13 (8.2%) samples produced discrepant results. Concordance between the assays for detecting HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies/mL was 95.8% (298/311). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Abbott to detect HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies/mL were 91.8%, 100%, 100% and 92.2%, respectively. For the 151 samples with HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies/mL for both assays, a good linear correlation was found (r = 0.81, P < 0.0001; mean difference, 0.05). The limits of agreement were -0.97 and 1.07 log(10) copies/mL (mean ± 2 SD). The Abbott assay performed well in our setting, offering an alternative methodology for HIV-1 VL for laboratories with realtime polymerase chain reaction (PCR) capacity.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections/virology , HIV-1/isolation & purification , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , Plasma/virology , Viral Load/methods , Anti-HIV Agents/administration & dosage , Drug Monitoring/methods , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , RNA, Viral/blood , Sensitivity and Specificity , UgandaABSTRACT
The performance characteristics of HIV rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) vary by test and by population. We assessed five commercial RDTs in Uganda where all but one RDT (Determine; Abbott Laboratories, Germany) performed close to manufacturer's expectations. Determine had low specificity (85.2%, positive predictive value 67.3%) due to false-positive results with weak-positive bands. Properly trained staff, good quality control programmes and validation of RDTs with laboratories having confirmatory testing capacity may be warranted to assure accuracy in each setting.
