BACKGROUND: The introduction of new real-time PCR HIV-1 assays with higher sensitivity and broader dynamic range has resulted in detection of low-level viremia (LLV) (≥ 50 copies/mL) in some patients who previously had undetectable HIV-1 viral load (VL) (<50 copies/mL) with end-point PCR assays. It is therefore important to compare the performance of end-point and newer real-time PCR assays at medically relevant decision points. OBJECTIVES: The study compared the results obtained with the end-point COBAS(®) AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, v1.5 to those obtained by three real-time PCR assays COBAS(®) AmpliPrep/COBAS(®) TaqMan(®) HIV-1 Test; the COBAS(®) AmpliPrep/COBAS(®) TaqMan(®) HIV-1 Test, v2.0; and the Abbott RealTime™ HIV-1 test. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 391 plasma specimens from HIV-1-infected patients from three US cities were tested with all four assays. The correlation and concordance of results between real-time and end-point PCR assays were calculated. RESULTS: There was a consistent and similar proportion (11.8-14.0%) of HIV-1 VL ≥ 50 copies/mL with the three real-time PCR assays for specimens recording <50 copies/mL on the end-point PCR assay. The real-time PCR assays correlated with the end-point PCR assay within generally accepted limits, but consistently quantified higher than the end-point PCR assay between 50 and 200 copies/mL. Discrepancies in results were associated with patient CD4+ cell count and antiviral medication class. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical interpretation of VL results from real-time PCR assays should take into account their higher sensitivity at the lower quantitation range when assessing patients for disease progression and monitoring response to therapy in HIV-1-infected patients, in line with current treatment guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The introduction of new real-time PCR HIV-1 assays with higher sensitivity and broader dynamic range has resulted in detection of low-level viremia (LLV) (≥ 50 copies/mL) in some patients who previously had undetectable HIV-1 viral load (VL) (<50 copies/mL) with end-point PCR assays. It is therefore important to compare the performance of end-point and newer real-time PCR assays at medically relevant decision points. OBJECTIVES: The study compared the results obtained with the end-point COBAS(®) AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, v1.5 to those obtained by three real-time PCR assays COBAS(®) AmpliPrep/COBAS(®) TaqMan(®) HIV-1 Test; the COBAS(®) AmpliPrep/COBAS(®) TaqMan(®) HIV-1 Test, v2.0; and the Abbott RealTime™ HIV-1 test. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 391 plasma specimens from HIV-1-infectedpatients from three US cities were tested with all four assays. The correlation and concordance of results between real-time and end-point PCR assays were calculated. RESULTS: There was a consistent and similar proportion (11.8-14.0%) of HIV-1 VL ≥ 50 copies/mL with the three real-time PCR assays for specimens recording <50 copies/mL on the end-point PCR assay. The real-time PCR assays correlated with the end-point PCR assay within generally accepted limits, but consistently quantified higher than the end-point PCR assay between 50 and 200 copies/mL. Discrepancies in results were associated with patient CD4+ cell count and antiviral medication class. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical interpretation of VL results from real-time PCR assays should take into account their higher sensitivity at the lower quantitation range when assessing patients for disease progression and monitoring response to therapy in HIV-1-infectedpatients, in line with current treatment guidelines.
Authors: Luke C Swenson; Jeong Eun Min; Conan K Woods; Eric Cai; Jonathan Z Li; Julio S G Montaner; P Richard Harrigan; Alejandro Gonzalez-Serna Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Thomas S Uldrick; Kathleen M Wyvill; Pallavi Kumar; Deirdre O'Mahony; Wendy Bernstein; Karen Aleman; Mark N Polizzotto; Seth M Steinberg; Stefania Pittaluga; Vickie Marshall; Denise Whitby; Richard F Little; Robert Yarchoan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer S Lee; Stephen R Cole; David B Richardson; Dirk P Dittmer; William C Miller; Richard D Moore; Mari Kitahata; Christopher Mathews; Kenneth Mayer; Elvin Geng; Chad J Achenbach; Joseph J Eron Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Kenneth N Ouma; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Jully A Okonji; John Williamson; Timothy K Thomas; Lisa A Mills; John N Nkengasong; Clement Zeh Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Chanson J Brumme; Luke C Swenson; Brian Wynhoven; Benita Yip; Stuart Skinner; Viviane Dias Lima; Julio S G Montaner; P Richard Harrigan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maximilian Muenchhoff; Savathee Madurai; Allison Jo Hempenstall; Emily Adland; Anna Carlqvist; Angeline Moonsamy; Manjeetha Jaggernath; Busisiwe Mlotshwa; Emma Siboto; Thumbi Ndung'u; Philip Jeremy Renshaw Goulder Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kimberly A Sollis; Pieter W Smit; Susan Fiscus; Nathan Ford; Marco Vitoria; Shaffiq Essajee; David Barnett; Ben Cheng; Suzanne M Crowe; Thomas Denny; Alan Landay; Wendy Stevens; Vincent Habiyambere; Jos Perrins; Rosanna W Peeling Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 3.240