BACKGROUND: The Roche COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 version 1.0 (v1.0) real-time PCR test detects more low level viral loads (VL) compared to the previous Roche Amplicor version 1.5 assay. Due to under-quantification issues, the Roche TaqMan HIV-1 version 2.0 (v2.0) was introduced in 2009. Controversy remains on differences at the low VL end, where clinical decisions regarding possible viral escape are based. OBJECTIVES: To compare the rate and size of VL blips with v1.0 and v2.0 in virologically suppressed patients and describe the impact of v2.0 on patient management. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study of HIV-positive patients on antiretroviral therapy with a VL <50 copies/ml at the beginning and end of the study period (July 2008-February 2010). VL blips were compared during two consecutive 9-month periods, initially measured by v1.0, then v2.0. Genotypic resistance testing and treatment switches were described. RESULTS: 1037 of 2584 patients (73.1% male) with median age 43 years were included. 2465 VL samples were measured on v1.0 and 2206 on v2.0. 108 (10.4%) patients had blips on v1.0 (4.4% of samples) compared to 99 (9.5%) patients (4.5% of samples) on v2.0. Median log VL was 1.89 (78 copies/ml) for v1.0 and 2.06 (116 copies/ml) for v2.0 (p=0.002). Further characterisation of 11 samples detected no resistance and no treatment modifications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: TaqMan v1.0 and v2.0 have similar blip rates, while blips are higher with v2.0. This study supports the strategy to increase the threshold of concern for VL blips on v2.0. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: The Roche COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 version 1.0 (v1.0) real-time PCR test detects more low level viral loads (VL) compared to the previous Roche Amplicor version 1.5 assay. Due to under-quantification issues, the Roche TaqMan HIV-1 version 2.0 (v2.0) was introduced in 2009. Controversy remains on differences at the low VL end, where clinical decisions regarding possible viral escape are based. OBJECTIVES: To compare the rate and size of VL blips with v1.0 and v2.0 in virologically suppressed patients and describe the impact of v2.0 on patient management. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study of HIV-positivepatients on antiretroviral therapy with a VL <50 copies/ml at the beginning and end of the study period (July 2008-February 2010). VL blips were compared during two consecutive 9-month periods, initially measured by v1.0, then v2.0. Genotypic resistance testing and treatment switches were described. RESULTS: 1037 of 2584 patients (73.1% male) with median age 43 years were included. 2465 VL samples were measured on v1.0 and 2206 on v2.0. 108 (10.4%) patients had blips on v1.0 (4.4% of samples) compared to 99 (9.5%) patients (4.5% of samples) on v2.0. Median log VL was 1.89 (78 copies/ml) for v1.0 and 2.06 (116 copies/ml) for v2.0 (p=0.002). Further characterisation of 11 samples detected no resistance and no treatment modifications were identified. CONCLUSIONS: TaqMan v1.0 and v2.0 have similar blip rates, while blips are higher with v2.0. This study supports the strategy to increase the threshold of concern for VL blips on v2.0. Copyright Â
Authors: Luke C Swenson; Bryan Cobb; Anna Maria Geretti; P Richard Harrigan; Mario Poljak; Carole Seguin-Devaux; Chris Verhofstede; Marc Wirden; Alessandra Amendola; Jurg Boni; Thomas Bourlet; Jon B Huder; Jean-Claude Karasi; Snjezana Zidovec Lepej; Maja M Lunar; Odette Mukabayire; Rob Schuurman; Janez Tomazic; Kristel Van Laethem; Linos Vandekerckhove; Annemarie M J Wensing Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 5.948
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: John M Murray; John J Zaunders; Kersten K Koelsch; Ven Natarajan; Yunden Badralmaa; Kristin McBride; Alexander Carrera; David A Cooper; Sean Emery; Anthony D Kelleher Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Jim Young; Martin Rickenbach; Alexandra Calmy; Enos Bernasconi; Cornelia Staehelin; Patrick Schmid; Matthias Cavassini; Manuel Battegay; Huldrych F Günthard; Heiner C Bucher Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Ninon Taylor; Katharina Grabmeier-Pfistershammer; Alexander Egle; Richard Greil; Armin Rieger; Bruno Ledergerber; Hannes Oberkofler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Palvinder Kaur; Wei Xin Khong; Sue Yuen Wee; Eng Lee Tan; Juergen Pipper; Evelyn Koay; Kah Ying Ng; Joe Kwan Yap; Kuan Kiat Chew; Mei Ting Tan; Yee Sin Leo; Masafumi Inoue; Oon Tek Ng Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-06 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: Frank Wiesmann; Robert Ehret; Gudrun Naeth; Martin Däumer; Jörg Fuhrmann; Rolf Kaiser; Christian Noah; Martin Obermeier; Gunnar Schalasta; Carsten Tiemann; Eva Wolf; Heribert Knechten; Patrick Braun Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 5.948