BACKGROUND: Quantitative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA load testing surpasses CD4 cell count and clinical monitoring in detecting antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure; however, its cost can be prohibitive. Recently, the use of pooling strategies with a clinically appropriate viral load threshold was shown to be accurate and efficient for monitoring when the prevalence of virologic failure is low. METHODS: We used laboratory request form information to identify specimens with a low pretest probability of virologic failure. Patients aged ≥15 years who were receiving first-line ART had individual viral load results available were eligible. Blood plasma, dried blood spots, and dried plasma spots were evaluated. Two pooling strategies were compared: minipools of 5 samples and a 10 ×10 matrix platform (liquid plasma specimens only). A deconvolution algorithm was used to identify specimens(s) with detectable viral loads. RESULTS: The virologic failure rate in the study sample was <10%. Specimens included were liquid plasma specimens tested in minipools(n = 400), of which 300 were available for testing by matrix, and specimens tested with minipools only: dried blood spots (n = 100) and dried plasma spots (n = 185). Pooling methods resulted in 30.5%-60% fewer HIV RNA tests required to screen the study sample. For plasma pooling, the matrix strategy had the better efficiency, but minipools of 5 dried blood spots had the best efficiency overall and were accurate at a >95% negative predictive value with minimal technical requirements. CONCLUSIONS: In resource-constrained settings, a combination of preselection of patients with low pretest probability of virologic failure and pooled testing can reduce the cost of virologic monitoring without compromising accuracy.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA load testing surpasses CD4 cell count and clinical monitoring in detecting antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure; however, its cost can be prohibitive. Recently, the use of pooling strategies with a clinically appropriate viral load threshold was shown to be accurate and efficient for monitoring when the prevalence of virologic failure is low. METHODS: We used laboratory request form information to identify specimens with a low pretest probability of virologic failure. Patients aged ≥15 years who were receiving first-line ART had individual viral load results available were eligible. Blood plasma, dried blood spots, and dried plasma spots were evaluated. Two pooling strategies were compared: minipools of 5 samples and a 10 ×10 matrix platform (liquid plasma specimens only). A deconvolution algorithm was used to identify specimens(s) with detectable viral loads. RESULTS: The virologic failure rate in the study sample was <10%. Specimens included were liquid plasma specimens tested in minipools(n = 400), of which 300 were available for testing by matrix, and specimens tested with minipools only: dried blood spots (n = 100) and dried plasma spots (n = 185). Pooling methods resulted in 30.5%-60% fewer HIV RNA tests required to screen the study sample. For plasma pooling, the matrix strategy had the better efficiency, but minipools of 5 dried blood spots had the best efficiency overall and were accurate at a >95% negative predictive value with minimal technical requirements. CONCLUSIONS: In resource-constrained settings, a combination of preselection of patients with low pretest probability of virologic failure and pooled testing can reduce the cost of virologic monitoring without compromising accuracy.
Authors: Olivia Keiser; Patrick MacPhail; Andrew Boulle; Robin Wood; Mauro Schechter; François Dabis; Eduardo Sprinz; Matthias Egger Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Vincent C Marconi; Henry Sunpath; Zhigang Lu; Michelle Gordon; Kofi Koranteng-Apeagyei; Jane Hampton; Steve Carpenter; Janet Giddy; Douglas Ross; Helga Holst; Elena Losina; Bruce D Walker; Daniel R Kuritzkes Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Avy Violari; Mark F Cotton; Diana M Gibb; Abdel G Babiker; Jan Steyn; Shabir A Madhi; Patrick Jean-Philippe; James A McIntyre Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christian Drosten; Marcus Panning; Jan Felix Drexler; Florian Hänsel; Celia Pedroso; Jane Yeats; Luciano Kleber de Souza Luna; Matthew Samuel; Britta Liedigk; Ute Lippert; Martin Stürmer; Hans Wilhelm Doerr; Carlos Brites; Wolfgang Preiser Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2006-04-20 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Henry Sunpath; Baohua Wu; Michelle Gordon; Jane Hampton; Brent Johnson; Mahomed-Yunus S Moosa; Claudia Ordonez; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Vincent C Marconi Journal: AIDS Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: T R Dinesha; J Boobalan; S Sivamalar; D Subashini; S S Solomon; K G Murugavel; P Balakrishnan; D M Smith; S Saravanan Journal: J Viral Hepat Date: 2018-02-19 Impact factor: 3.728
Authors: Benjamin P Westley; Allison K DeLong; Chhraing S Tray; Dim Sophearin; Elizabeth M Dufort; Eric Nerrienet; Leeann Schreier; Joseph I Harwell; Rami Kantor Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Hyewon Kim; Nam Su Ku; Sun Bean Kim; Su Jin Jeong; Sang Hoon Han; June Myung Kim; Davey M Smith; Jun Yong Choi Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Gert U van Zyl; Lisa M Frenkel; Michael H Chung; Wolfgang Preiser; John W Mellors; Jean B Nachega Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Mariel M Finucane; Christopher F Rowley; Christopher J Paciorek; Max Essex; Marcello Pagano Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Joseph B Sempa; Jonathan Dushoff; Michael J Daniels; Barbara Castelnuovo; Agnes N Kiragga; Martin Nieuwoudt; Steven E Bellan Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.897