Evaluation of the ELITechGroup solution for plasma HIV-1 RNA quantification.

In the last few years, many manufacturers have developed new kits for plasma HIV-1 RNA quantification. Recently, a solution consisting of the ELITe InGenius® instrument and the HIV1 ELITe MGB®kit has been commercialized worldwide. Our aim was to compare its clinical performance with the Aptima® HIV-1 Quant Dx kit by Hologic, on a panel of HIV-1 group M circulating variants, representative of viral load levels found during the pre- and post-treatment follow-up of patients. The linearity was evaluated on the AcroMetrix® HIV-1 Panel. Clinical specificity was evaluated on 100 plasma samples negative for HIV; and clinical sensitivity and sequential follow-up were evaluated on 166 HIV-1 positive plasma samples from 126 patients. The linearity data showed a difference obtained for each point of less than 0.2 Log cp/mL. No amplification was found for the 100 HIV negative clinical specimens. The overall agreement between the two kits was 83.7 %; the differences corresponded to a slightly higher detection for the Aptima kit (with more samples detected below the lower limit of quantification). A Bland & Altman analysis of the quantifiable samples showed a mean difference of -0.05 Log and Spearman's coefficient was 0.975. Only six samples presented discrepancies (above 0.5 Log), but these differences were overall similar between the two kits. Our study has shown that the HIV1 ELITe MGB® Kit can be successfully used for the monitoring of patients infected with various epidemic HIV-1 strains, and for the precise quantification of the viral load.

Performance Analysis of Three Commercial Kits Designed for RNA Quantification of HIV-1 Group O Variants.

BACKGROUND: The genetic divergence of HIV-1 group O is high relative to pandemic group M, which could impact detection and quantification of plasma RNA. Recent commercial kits for RNA quantification seem to show good performances in HIV-1/O, but discrepancies are still observed. Here, we compare the performances of 3 commercial assays for the RNA quantification of HIV-1/O. METHODS: We studied the RNA quantification of 117 clinical samples using Abbott RealTime HIV-1, Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load, or Roche Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 v2. First, we conducted a qualitative description, and second, we focused on a quantitative analysis of the results above 40 cp/mL. The degree of agreement between methods and the strength of the correlation of viral load determination were estimated using Bland-Altman plot and Passing-Bablok regression with the Spearman coefficient, respectively. RESULTS: Our 2-by-2 analysis showed that the Abbott and Cepheid assays were very close in terms of correlation and dispersion of points, whereas Roche presented higher values in the highest range of quantification (>5 log10). The Cepheid assay combined better correlation with the consensus value and a lower dispersion of values, leading to an overall better performance of quantification. The quantification was still impacted by intragroup genetic diversity with, here, 1 strain (YBF26). CONCLUSIONS: Using a new approach to compare the performances of RNA quantification between more than 2 techniques, we demonstrated that Cepheid could be the most suitable assay for HIV-1/O quantification, although the results from all assays remained strain dependent.

Evaluation of four commercial extraction-quantification systems to monitor EBV or CMV viral load in whole blood.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viral loads is commonly used to monitor posttransplant patients. Two new systems (eMAG/eSTREAM and Versant/kPCR) have been recently commercialized. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of four systems to quantify CMV and EBV in whole blood. STUDY DESIGN: Three extraction and real-time PCR amplification systems: m2000SP/RT (M2000), eMAG/eSTREAM (EMAG), and Versant/kPCR (KPCR) were compared with our routine system Qiasymphony/RGQ (QS/RGQ). The 4 systems were tested using 3 dilutions in triplicate according to the WHO international standard (WHO-IS) for intra-assay reproducibility; 56 whole blood samples (24 patients, 4 follow-ups) for CMV and 45 samples (27 patients, 3 follow-ups) for EBV. RESULTS: For CMV, the mean of the WHO-IS (expected value: 4.7 Log IU/ml) was: QS/RGQ=4.84, M2000=4.61, EMAG=4.33, and KPCR=4.79. One patient (10 samples) presented a major underquantification by QS/RGQ. Of the 46 remaining samples, 41 were quantified with QS/RGQ, 43 with M2000, 33 with EMAG and 24 with KPCR. For EBV, the mean of the WHO-IS was: QS/RGQ=4.70, M2000=4.61, EMAG=4.62, and KPCR=4.57. Among the 45 samples, 43 were quantified with QS/RGQ, 39 with M2000, 40 with EMAG and 32 with KPCR. CONCLUSION: The results obtained with the WHO-IS were very good. The results of patients' samples were well correlated with the announced sensitivity of each system. The elevated threshold of the KPCR CMV assay may be problematic for the follow-up of highly immunocompromised patients who require early introduction of treatment.

Performance Evaluation of the New HIV-1 Quantification Assay, Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load, on a Wide Panel of HIV-1 Variants.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quantification performance of the new Cepheid GeneXpert HIV-1 viral load assay, on a wide panel of HIV-1 variants. METHODS: Clinical performance was evaluated relative to the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assay on 285 HIV-1 seropositive samples selected to cover the assays quantification range (40 copies/mL-10,000,000 copies/mL), and included RNA undetectable or detected seropositive samples. The panel comprised 120 subtype B, 150 non-B, and 15 nontypable clinical samples; serial dilutions of 18 viral supernatants representative of the divergent viruses of HIV-1 groups N, O, and P were also tested. RESULTS: Based on samples selected according to the Abbott assay viral loads (VL), the Cepheid assay detected or quantified 222/285 (78%) samples and the Abbott assay 240/285 (84%). Xpert yielded VLs for 162 (76%) of the 213 quantifiable samples with Abbott. This difference corresponded to 51 samples with VL >40 copies/mL by the Abbott assay (all below 200 copies/mL) but detected (n = 40) or undetectable (n = 11) by the Cepheid assay. VL of samples quantifiable by both assays (n = 162) showed very strong correlation, with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.985 and a Bland-Altman's mean of differences of -0.01. Performance for quantification of the non-M samples showed very good correlation, with significantly higher values with Cepheid for the group N and 2 group O samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the Xpert HIV-1 VL assay offered very good performance for detection and quantification of the current HIV-1 genetic diversity; differences reported at the threshold could be an issue and requires further evaluations. The practicability of this new assay makes it suitable for low-income countries, where it could facilitate and improve follow-up of patients, as well as for high-income regions.