BACKGROUND: Several commercially available HIV-1 viral load assays based on real-time detection technology and automated platforms are available. It is not clear how the diversity of HIV-1 genotypes impacts the ability to consistently detect HIV-1 viral loads. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the diversity of HIV-1 genotypes impacts the ability of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 test version 2.0 (CAP/CTM v2.0), its version 1.0 (CAP/CTM v1.0) and the NucliSens EasyQ HIV-1 version 2.0 (EasyQ v2.0) assays to consistently determine the viral loads. STUDY DESIGN: The three assays were used to measure the viral load in 178 plasma samples with diverse genotypes from treatment-naive patients. RESULTS: CAP/CTM v2.0 showed significant correlation and high agreement with CAP/CTM v1.0 and EasyQ v2.0. CAP/CTM v2.0 showed excellent detection of clade B samples compared with CAP/CTM v1.0 and EasyQ v2.0. However, significant differences were observed when using CAP/CTM v2.0 to test clade BC and AE samples. The HIV-1 load measured by CAP/CTM v2.0 differed by >0.5logIU/ml in 59.52% and 72.62% of clade BC samples, and in 57.14% and 85.71% of clade AE samples, compared with CAP/CTM v1.0 and EasyQ v2.0, respectively. CAP/CTM v2.0 was more precise (13.18%) than EasyQ v2.0 (29.21%), and both assays showed good linearity (R≥0.9926). CONCLUSIONS: The three assays may not deliver consistent results for samples belonging to clades BC and AE. It is strongly suggested that the version of the HIV-1 viral load assay used initially is also used at follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Several commercially available HIV-1 viral load assays based on real-time detection technology and automated platforms are available. It is not clear how the diversity of HIV-1 genotypes impacts the ability to consistently detect HIV-1 viral loads. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the diversity of HIV-1 genotypes impacts the ability of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 test version 2.0 (CAP/CTM v2.0), its version 1.0 (CAP/CTM v1.0) and the NucliSens EasyQ HIV-1 version 2.0 (EasyQ v2.0) assays to consistently determine the viral loads. STUDY DESIGN: The three assays were used to measure the viral load in 178 plasma samples with diverse genotypes from treatment-naive patients. RESULTS: CAP/CTM v2.0 showed significant correlation and high agreement with CAP/CTM v1.0 and EasyQ v2.0. CAP/CTM v2.0 showed excellent detection of clade B samples compared with CAP/CTM v1.0 and EasyQ v2.0. However, significant differences were observed when using CAP/CTM v2.0 to test clade BC and AE samples. The HIV-1 load measured by CAP/CTM v2.0 differed by >0.5logIU/ml in 59.52% and 72.62% of clade BC samples, and in 57.14% and 85.71% of clade AE samples, compared with CAP/CTM v1.0 and EasyQ v2.0, respectively. CAP/CTM v2.0 was more precise (13.18%) than EasyQ v2.0 (29.21%), and both assays showed good linearity (R≥0.9926). CONCLUSIONS: The three assays may not deliver consistent results for samples belonging to clades BC and AE. It is strongly suggested that the version of the HIV-1 viral load assay used initially is also used at follow-up.
Authors: Malaya K Sahoo; Vici Varghese; Elizabeth White; Meg Winslow; David A Katzenstein; Robert W Shafer; Benjamin A Pinsky Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Patrick Ryscavage; Sean Kelly; Jonathan Z Li; P Richard Harrigan; Babafemi Taiwo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 5.191
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