BACKGROUND: Current real-time PCR-based HIV-1 viral load (VL) assays allow the detection of residual viraemia in antiretroviral-treated patients. The clinical outcome of HIV1 patients experiencing low-level replication (<50 cop/mL) in comparison with fully suppressed patients is currently debated. We analysed variability of 3 VL assays <50 cop/mL, and evaluated the reproducibility of viral blips <100 cop/mL. METHODS: Three commercial VL assays were tested: Versant HIV-1 RNA 1.0 kPCR (Siemens), Abbott Realtime HIV-1, and Cobas Ampliprep/Cobas Taqman HIV-1 v2.0 (Roche). Ten replicates of a reference sample at 4 low target dilutions were tested to evaluate assay variability. Prospective collection of 181 clinical samples with detectable VL <50 cop/mL was used to evaluate intra-and inter-assay variability by triplicate testing. Samples from 26 patients experiencing a viral blip were retested. RESULTS: All assays showed substantial variability at low VL level: the coefficient of variation at 100, 50, 25 and 12 cop/mL ranged respectively from 32 to 44%, 35 to 68%, 41 to 83% and 33 to 77%. In the intra-assay evaluation of repeatability, 52.5 to 57.5% of detectable VL <50 cop/mL tested in triplicate showed at least one fully undetected result. Variability was similar in the inter-assay arm. The VL blips could only be reproduced in 19% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The most recent versions of widespread commercial VL assays showed substantial variability at low levels and residual viraemia could not be consistently reproduced. Patient outcome studies comparing residual VL to full suppression are therefore biased when using commercial assays.
BACKGROUND: Current real-time PCR-based HIV-1 viral load (VL) assays allow the detection of residual viraemia in antiretroviral-treated patients. The clinical outcome of HIV1patients experiencing low-level replication (<50 cop/mL) in comparison with fully suppressed patients is currently debated. We analysed variability of 3 VL assays <50 cop/mL, and evaluated the reproducibility of viral blips <100 cop/mL. METHODS: Three commercial VL assays were tested: Versant HIV-1 RNA 1.0 kPCR (Siemens), Abbott Realtime HIV-1, and Cobas Ampliprep/Cobas Taqman HIV-1 v2.0 (Roche). Ten replicates of a reference sample at 4 low target dilutions were tested to evaluate assay variability. Prospective collection of 181 clinical samples with detectable VL <50 cop/mL was used to evaluate intra-and inter-assay variability by triplicate testing. Samples from 26 patients experiencing a viral blip were retested. RESULTS: All assays showed substantial variability at low VL level: the coefficient of variation at 100, 50, 25 and 12 cop/mL ranged respectively from 32 to 44%, 35 to 68%, 41 to 83% and 33 to 77%. In the intra-assay evaluation of repeatability, 52.5 to 57.5% of detectable VL <50 cop/mL tested in triplicate showed at least one fully undetected result. Variability was similar in the inter-assay arm. The VL blips could only be reproduced in 19% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The most recent versions of widespread commercial VL assays showed substantial variability at low levels and residual viraemia could not be consistently reproduced. Patient outcome studies comparing residual VL to full suppression are therefore biased when using commercial assays.
Authors: Raffaella Rosso; Antonio Di Biagio; Franco Maggiolo; Loredana Nulvesu; Anna Paola Callegaro; Lucia Taramasso; Bianca Bruzzone; Claudio Viscoli Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2011-07-29
Authors: Celine S Yan; Imelda Hanafi; Anthony D Kelleher; Andrew D Carr; Janaki Amin; Leon P McNally; Philip H Cunningham Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Hiroyu Hatano; Timothy L Hayes; Viktor Dahl; Elizabeth Sinclair; Tzong-Hae Lee; Rebecca Hoh; Harry Lampiris; Peter W Hunt; Sarah Palmer; Joseph M McCune; Jeffrey N Martin; Michael P Busch; Barbara L Shacklett; Steven G Deeks Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Rajesh T Gandhi; Lu Zheng; Ronald J Bosch; Ellen S Chan; David M Margolis; Sarah Read; Beatrice Kallungal; Sarah Palmer; Kathy Medvik; Michael M Lederman; Nadia Alatrakchi; Jeffrey M Jacobson; Ann Wiegand; Mary Kearney; John M Coffin; John W Mellors; Joseph J Eron Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Seth C Kalichman; Chauncey Cherry; Moira O Kalichman; Lisa A Eaton; James J Kohler; Catherine Montero; Raymond F Schinazi Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Christina M Lalama; Cheryl Jennings; Victoria A Johnson; Robert W Coombs; John E McKinnon; James W Bremer; Bryan R Cobb; Gavin A Cloherty; John W Mellors; Heather J Ribaudo Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 5.948
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: 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