Assessment of agreement between the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test versions 1.0 and 1.5

The agreement of the microwell plate AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.0 (MWP 1.0), the microwell plate AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (MWP 1.5), and the COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (COBAS 1.5) tests was evaluated using clinical specimens and well-characterized control material. Two hundred patient plasma specimens and a panel of known human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) subtypes were tested. All data were log(10) transformed prior to analysis. The 95% limits of agreement for the three tests at the average of 3.66 log(10) copies/ml were +/- 0.28 log(10), +/- 0.34 log(10), and +/- 0.34 log(10) copies/ml for MWP 1.0-MWP 1.5, MWP 1.0-COBAS 1.5, and MWP 1.5-COBAS 1.5, respectively. Ten specimens (6.1%) had differences exceeding the limits of agreement for the MWP 1.0 and MWP 1.5 tests. Correlation coefficients among the three tests were high (r >or=0.96). The viral-load values obtained with the MWP 1.0 test were only 2.1% higher on average than those measured with the MWP 1.5 test and 1.6% higher than those seen with the COBAS 1.5 test. The MWP 1.5 test values were 0.8% higher than the COBAS 1.5 test values. Overall, there was less agreement among the different tests for viral-load values near the lower limit of quantification. The MWP 1.0 test underquantified subtypes A, E, F, G, and H by 1.0 to 2.0 log(10) copies/ml; this problem was not observed with the MWP 1.5 test. The close agreement among the results obtained with the different test versions and formats suggests that it is not necessary to reestablish a baseline viral load when changing AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR tests, unless the patient is known to be infected with a non-B subtype.     

Comparison of the sensitivities and viral load values of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.0 and 1.5 tests

This study compared the sensitivity and viral load values of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR microwell version 1.0, microwell version 1.5, and COBAS version 1.5 tests. Based on the percentage of positive replicates, the microwell version 1.5 and COBAS version 1.5 tests are more sensitive than the microwell version 1.0 test. Viral load values obtained with the COBAS version 1.5 test are lower than those obtained with either the microwell version 1.0 or microwell version 1.5 test.     

The effects of the Roche AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR UltraSensitive Test versions 1.0 and 1.5 viral load assays and plasma collection tube type on determination of response to antiretroviral therapy and the inappropriateness of cross-study comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Because there are limited head-to-head data comparing antiretroviral combinations, physicians are tempted to rely on cross-trial comparisons to evaluate the relative efficacy of HIV drugs. However, a variety of factors can confound these comparisons, resulting in misleading or invalid conclusions. OBJECTIVES: To compare and evaluate the use of: (i) versions 1.0 and 1.5 of the Roche AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR UltraSensitive assay, and (ii) ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and plasma preparation (PPT) tubes on the proportion of HIV-infected patients who would be classified as virological responders in a multinational clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: The study utilized was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of atazanavir with efavirenz, each in combination with fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine, in antiretroviral-na?ve patients. To evaluate the effect of monitor kit version, paired plasma samples from 634 patients at week 48 were analyzed using both versions 1.0 and 1.5 of the monitor kit. To evaluate the effect of collection tube type, paired plasma samples collected from 584 patients at week 52 using both EDTA and PPT tubes were assayed. Patients were classified as responders if HIV-1 RNA levels were below a pre-determined level of quantification (LOQ), both 400 and 50 copies/ml. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Substantially higher HIV-1 RNA levels were observed with monitor kit version 1.5, resulting in lower response rates. The version 1.0 monitor kit resulted in a 7% increase in patients classified as responders at the LOQ of 400 copies/ml and a 13% increase at the LOQ of 50 copies/ml. Consistently higher response rates (11% higher at the LOQ of 400 copies/ml and 34% higher at the LOQ of 50 copies/ml) were also observed when samples were collected in EDTA tubes compared with PPT tubes. Differences in monitor kit sensitivity and plasma collection procedures are key factors in study results and suggest caution when performing cross-study comparisons.     

Comparison of the sensitivities of the version 1.5 and version 1.0 ultrasensitive Roche AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR kits at low concentrations of human immunodeficiency virus RNA

The sensitivities of the version 1.5 and 1.0 Roche UltraSensitive AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR tests were compared using panels of coded samples of subtype B human immunodeficiency virus type 1 spiked into plasma at predetermined concentrations. Results indicate that the version 1.5 kit is more sensitive than the version 1.0 kit.     

NucliSens HIV-1 QT和Amplicor HIV-1 monitor1.5方法测定HIV-1病毒载量的比较研究

目的进行NuchSens HIV-1 QT和Amplicor HIV-1 monitor 1．5检测相同临床样品HIV-1病毒载量值之间的比较研究。方法收集临床样本82份，使用两种方法测定病毒载量，对病毒载量值进行统计分析。结果未测到核酸的和两种方法病毒载量对数值之差小于0．5的占88．9％；用△log10 VL〈0．5的56份样本统计两种方法的相关性，相关系数为0．956。结论NucliSens HIV-1 QT和Amphcor HIV-1 monitor 1．5两种方法测定的HIV病毒载量值有很好的相关性。     

Stability of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA in cerebrospinal fluid determined with the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test,version 1.5 (ultrasensitive)

We evaluated the effects of time, temperature, freezing, and thawing on the cerebrospinal fluid viral load by using the Roche AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test, version 1.5 (ultrasensitive). While a statistically significant decrease from the baseline was observed at 24 h, but not at 6 or 12 h, and with one freeze-thaw cycle, all changes were within the range of intra-assay variability.     

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) plasma load discrepancies between the Roche COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Version 1.5 and the Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 assays

We compared plasma viral load values obtained with COBAS AMPLICOR human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) MONITOR version 1.5 and with COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 assays. Mean values were 4.2 and 2.9 log(10) copies/ml, respectively, showing the lack of agreement between the two assays.     

Impact of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) genetic diversity on performance of four commercial viral load assays: LCx HIV RNA Quantitative, AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR v1.5, VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0, and NucliSens HIV-1 QT

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) evolution and changing strain distribution present a challenge to nucleic acid-based assays. Reliable patient monitoring of viral loads requires the detection and accurate quantification of genetically diverse HIV-1. A panel of 97 HIV-1-seropositive plasma samples collected from Cameroon, Brazil, and South Africa was used to compare the performance of four commercially available HIV RNA quantitative tests: Abbott LCx HIV RNA Quantitative assay (LCx), Bayer Versant HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA), Roche AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR v1.5 (Monitor v1.5), and bioMérieux NucliSens HIV-1 QT (NucliSens). The panel included group M, group O, and recombinant viruses based on sequence analysis of gag p24, pol integrase, and env gp41. The LCx HIV assay quantified viral RNA in 97 (100%) of the samples. In comparison, bDNA, Monitor v1.5, and NucliSens quantified viral RNA in 96.9%, 94.8%, and 88.6% of the samples, respectively. The two group O specimens were quantified only by the LCx HIV assay. Analysis of nucleotide mismatches at the primer/probe binding sites for Monitor v1.5, NucliSens, and LCx assays revealed that performance characteristics reflected differences in the level of genetic conservation within the target regions.     

Comparison of the QUANTIPLEX HIV-1 RNA 2.0 Assay with the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0 Assay for Quantitation of Levels of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 RNA in Plasma of Patients Receiving Stavudine-Didanosine Combination Therapy

We compared the QUANTIPLEX HIV-1 RNA 2.0 assay with the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0 assay for quantitation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA in plasma in the Stadi trail, which evaluated a stavudine plus didanosine combination therapy in 52 patients. HIV-1 RNA baseline values measured with AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0 were significantly higher than those measured with QUANTIPLEX HIV-1 RNA 2.0, and decreases in HIV-1 RNA levels from baseline were also found to be significantly higher when measured with the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0 assay. The frequency of HIV-1 RNA levels below the lower limit of quantitation was significantly higher with QUANTIPLEX HIV-1 RNA 2.0 than with AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0. Reanalysis of these results by an ultrasensitive procedure of AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0 or by a modified version of the test that included additional primers adapted for non-B HIV-1 clades yielded greater differences between the QUANTIPLEX HIV-1 RNA 2.0 assay and the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.0 assay. Our results indicate that a valid comparison of the virological efficacies obtained with different antiretroviral drug regimens requires the use of the same viral load quantitation procedure; further standardization between the different HIV-1 RNA quantitation kits is therefore needed.     

Impact of the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, Version 1.5, on clinical laboratory operations

The COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version 1.5 (CAP/CA), and the COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version 1.5, were compared. CAP/CA reduced and consolidated labor while modestly increasing assay throughput without increased failure rates or direct costs, regardless of batch size and assay format.     

Comprehensive comparison of the VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA) and COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.5 assays on 1,000 clinical specimens.

BACKGROUND: Plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level is an important parameter for patient management, yet viral load assays from different manufacturers are not standardized. OBJECTIVES AND STUDY DESIGN: In this study, we evaluated the concordance between test results obtained for 1,000 plasma specimens collected from HIV-1-infected individuals measured with the VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 assay (bDNA) and the COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.5 test (PCR). We compared viral load values obtained by each of these assays throughout their dynamic ranges, with particular focus on samples with low viral load (i.e. 50-250 copies/mL), and calculated the estimated distribution of distinct plasma viral load levels for the entire study population modeled from the data observed in the study. RESULTS: We found that these two assays show excellent agreement, with a correlation (R(2)) of 0.957 and a slope of 1.004. The mean difference in viral load values between the two assays was less than 0.10-log(10) throughout the dynamic range and 98.2% of all samples had bDNA and PCR results within 0.5-log(10) of each other, a difference that is within the range considered to be a minimal change in plasma viremia. Moreover, the two assays show very similar results across all assay ranges tested. The estimated prevalence of samples with results <50 copies/mL, 50-250 copies/mL, and 250-500,000 copies/mL were 41.6%, 7.7%, and 49.7%, respectively, by the bDNA assay, and 42.4%, 6.9%, and 50.7%, respectively, by the PCR assay. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings from 1,000 clinical specimens, we do not see the need to re-establish a baseline value or apply a conversion factor when switching from one assay to the other. Since the majority of our patient population likely is infected with subtype B virus, it is unclear if our findings will apply to other patient populations with a greater incidence of infection with non-B subtypes.     

Comparative evaluation of the QUANTIPLEX HIV-1 RNA 2.0 and 3.0 (bDNA) assays and the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR v1.5 test for the quantitation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA in plasma

HIV-1 RNA measurements from 84 plasma specimens obtained with the QUANTIPLEX HIV-1 RNA 2.0 and 3.0 (bDNA) assays (Chiron Diagnostics, Emeryville, CA) and with the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version 1.5 with ultra-sensitive specimen preparation (Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Branchburg, NJ) were compared. The absolute RNA values of tested specimens differed significantly between bDNA 2.0 and bDNA 3.0 or Monitor v1.5 measurements (Wilcoxon signed-rank test P<0.001). Results generated with bDNA 3.0 or with Monitor v1.5 were approximately twofold greater than those generated with bDNA 2.0, with smaller differences at higher HIV-1 RNA levels and greater differences at RNA levels below 1000 copies per ml. Although highly correlated (r=0.92 and 0.86, respectively), viral load data generated with bDNA 2.0 and either bDNA 3.0 or Monitor v1.5 were in poor agreement. Concordant results (difference in log(10) copies per ml <0.5) were found at frequencies of 80% for bDNA 2.0 and bDNA 3.0 and only at 58.5% for bDNA 2.0 and Monitor v1.5. In contrast, bDNA 3.0 and Monitor v1.5 measurements were highly correlated (r=0.96) and in good agreement (92.7%).     

Evaluation of the clinical usefulness of COBAS AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR assay (ver2.0): Comparison with AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR assay (ver1.0) and HCV core protein level

The quantitation of serum levels of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA in chronic hepatitis C has been regarded as one of the most important indicators for the outcome of interferon (IFN) therapy. The AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR version 1.0 (AMPLICOR v1.0) assay is widely used for the evaluation of the HCV level. A new generation assay called the COBAS AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR version 2.0 (COBAS v2.0) assay, which is semiautomated and modified to amplify all genotypes equally, has been developed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of the COBAS v2.0 assay in comparison with the AMPLICOR v1.0 assay and HCV core protein assay in patients with chronic hepatitis C before IFN therapy. HCV RNA was detectable in 230 cases (97.5%) and undetectable in 6 cases (2.5%) by the COBAS v2.0 assay. The RNA levels measured by the AMPLICOR v1.0 assay correlated significantly with those measured by the COBAS v2.0 assay, and the sensitivity of the new version 2.0 assay was better than that of version 1.0, especially in serotype 2. In relation to the outcome of IFN therapy, HCV RNA levels from virologically sustained responders by the AMPLICOR v1.0 assay were 82.3 +/- 22.9 kcopies/ml in serotype 1 and 36.9 +/- 13.4 kcopies/ml in serotype 2, and those from virologically nonsustained responders were 525.2 +/- 48.6 kcopies/ml in serotype 1 and 76.7 +/- 19.5 kcopies/ml in serotype 2.The rates of sustained response to <100 kcopies/ml were 34/63 (54.0%) in serotype 1 and 24/48 (50.0%) in serotype 2. A statistically significant virological response was seen in serotype 1 (P < 0.0001), but not in serotype 2. In contrast, the levels in virologically sustained responders by the COBAS v2.0 assay were 88.2 +/- 20.5 KIU/ml in serotype 1 and 136.8 +/- 40.1 KIU/ml in serotype 2, and those in virologically nonsustained responders were 608.8 +/- 48.4 KIU/ml in serotype 1 and 328.3 +/- 62.8 KIU/ml in serotype 2. The rates of sustained response to <100 KIU/ml were 33/60 (55.0%) in serotype 1 and 21/35 (60.0%) in serotype 2. Statistical significance in virological response was seen in both serotype 1 (P < 0.0001) and serotype 2 (P < 0.05). Although the sensitivity of the HCV core protein assay was lower than that with the COBAS v2.0 assay, the HCV core protein levels also correlated well with the results of the COBAS v2.0 assay. The HCV core protein levels of virologically sustained responders were 37.6 +/- 12.0 pg/ml in serotype 1, 81.3 +/- 37.0 pg/ml in serotype 2, and those of virologically nonsustained responders were 289.9 +/- 23.5 pg/ml in serotype 1, 191.4 +/- 32.1 pg/ml in serotype 2. This assay could predict the outcome of IFN therapy in both serotype 1 (P < 0.0001) and serotype 2 (P < 0.05). Thus, both the COBAS v2.0 assay and the HCV core protein assay showed that the viral load was an indicator of virologically sustained response in serotype 2 and in serotype 1.     

Prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) non-B subtypes in foreigners living in Madrid, Spain, and comparison of the performances of the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.0 and the new automated version 1.5

Plasma specimens collected in 1999 from 32 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected foreigners living in Madrid, Spain, were examined for the presence of non-B subtypes. Furthermore, plasma viremia was quantified using two different AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR tests, version 1.0 and the new upgraded and automated version 1.5 (COBAS). Most patients came from Africa, where they most likely had acquired HIV-1 infection through sexual contact. HIV-1 genetic subtyping was based on the phylogenetic analysis of the protease gene. Twenty-two subtype B, six subtype G, two subtype C, one subtype A, and one D subtype infection were found. Overall, non-B subtypes represented 31.25% of the study population. Irrespective of the HIV-1 variant, viral load values above the detection limit (200 HIV RNA copies/ml) increased from 56.2 to 71.9% for results obtained using MONITOR version 1.0 and COBAS, respectively. Moreover, significant differences in viral load values (>0.5 logs) were recognized in up to 37.5% of samples. In summary, COBAS seemed to be more reliable for testing plasma viral load in HIV-infected immigrants living in Spain, one third of whom carried non-B subtypes.     

Comparison of HIV-1 viral load assay performance in immunological stable patients with low or undetectable viremia

The goal of antiretroviral therapy is reduction in morbidity and mortality via suppression of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral load (VL) to undetectable levels. VL assay sensitivity has improved over time, but the reproducibility and clinical importance of VL results marginally higher than the limit of detection (LoD) are uncertain. We assessed the reproducibility and concordance of low VL results obtained with the Roche Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 version 2.0 (CAP–CTM) and the Abbott RealTime (m2000) HIV-1 assays, using longitudinal specimens from HIV-1-infected patients with low VL (<300 copies/ml) and stable CD4+ cell counts. Based on replicate testing of 3 specimens, coefficients of variation for log-transformed VL results were 5–8 % for m2000 and 9–10 % for CAP–CTM. The concordance between assays in specimens from patients with previously undetectable, detectable but not quantifiable VL, or variable (undetectable/detectable but not quantifiable VL) results over time was 90, 56, and 56 %, respectively. Correlation between results for specimens with quantifiable VL (initially 40–300 copies/ml) was moderate (R ² = 0.48) with significantly higher results for CAP–CTM and a mean difference (CAP–CTM minus m2000) of 0.10 log₁₀ copies/ml. T-cell activation (CD8+/CD38+ percentage) in patients with low VL was initially higher than in patients with undetectable VL, and then decreased to equivalent levels over time. These results indicate that residual viremia at levels slightly above the LoD have no negative effect on T-cell activation.     

Improvement of AMPLICOR human immunodeficiency virus type 1 viral load test (version 1.5) by addition of a coprecipitant during the RNA isolation step

The effect of the addition of a coprecipitant during the RNA isolation step on the analytical performance of the COBAS AMPLICOR human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) Monitor (version 1.5; Roche) viral load test was tested. Thirty-six specimens including patient samples, positive control samples, and negative control samples were processed in the presence and absence of the Pellet Paint coprecipitant. Specimens processed without the coprecipitant had lower RNA yields, as evidenced by a lower signal for the quantitation standard (QS). In addition, the results for all samples processed with the coprecipitant were acceptable on the basis of the optical density (OD) reading for the QS, whereas the result for one specimen processed without the coprecipitant was unacceptable on the basis of the OD reading for the QS, which required the assay to be repeated. Furthermore, the use of the coprecipitant improved the overall precision of the assay.     

Assessment of viral loads in patients with chronic hepatitis C with AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR version 1.0, COBAS HCV MONITOR version 2.0, and QUANTIPLEX HCV RNA version 2.0 assays

The correlation between response to antiviral therapy and pretreatment viral load in patients with chronic hepatitis C has prompted the development of quantitative assays to measure viral load. The aim of our study was to assess the clinical relevance of the newly developed semiautomated PCR system COBAS HCV MONITOR version 2.0 in comparison with (i) the AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR version 1.0 assay, which underestimates RNA concentration of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes 2 to 6, and (ii) the QUANTIPLEX HCV RNA version 2.0 assay, which achieves equivalent quantification for each HCV genotype, with samples from 174 patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C before therapy. The level and range of quantification measured with AMPLICOR HCV MONITOR version 1.0 were 1 log lower than when measured with the COBAS HCV MONITOR version 2.0, at 0.261 x 10(6) RNA copies/ml (range, 0.001 x 10(6) to 2.50 x 10(6) RNA copies/ml) and 4.032 x 10(6) RNA copies/ml (range, 0.026 x 10(6) to 72.6 x 10(6) RNA copies/ml), respectively. The two assays showed a poor correlation (r(2) = 0.175). The level and range of quantification were similar when measured with the COBAS HCV MONITOR version 2.0 and QUANTIPLEX HCV RNA version 2.0 assays, at 3.03 x 10(6) RNA copies/ml (range, 0.023 x 10(6) to 72.6 x 10(6) RNA copies/ml) and 4.91 Meq/ml (range, 0.200 to 49.5 Meq/ml), respectively. The two assays showed a strong correlation (r(2) = 0. 686) for each HCV genotype. The duration of treatment (6 or 12 months) is modulated according to HCV genotype and viral load. Our results indicate that COBAS HCV MONITOR version 2.0 and QUANTIPLEX HCV RNA version 2.0 assays showing an equal dynamic range for each HCV genotype are suitable tools to assess patients before therapy.     

Comparative performance of three viral load assays on human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates representing group M (subtypes A to G) and group O: LCx HIV RNA quantitative, AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5, and Quantiplex HIV-1 RNA version 3.0

The performance of the LCx HIV RNA Quantitative (LCx HIV), AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR version 1.5 (MONITOR v1.5), and Quantiplex HIV-1 RNA version 3.0 (bDNA v3.0) viral load assays was evaluated with 39 viral isolates (3 A, 7 B, 6 C, 4 D, 8 E, 4 F, 1 G, 4 mosaic, and 2 group O). Quantitation across the assay dynamic ranges was assessed using serial fivefold dilutions of the viruses. In addition, sequences of gag-encoded p24 (gag p24), pol-encoded integrase, and env-encoded gp41 were analyzed to assign group and subtype and to assess nucleotide mismatches at primer and probe binding sites. For group M isolates, quantification was highly correlated among all three assays. In contrast, only the LCx HIV assay reliably quantified group O isolates. The bDNA v3.0 assay detected but consistently underquantified group O viruses, whereas the MONITOR v1.5 test failed to detect group O viruses. Analysis of target regions revealed fewer primer or probe mismatches in the LCx HIV assay than in the MONITOR v1.5 test. Consistent with the high level of nucleotide conservation is the ability of the LCx HIV assay to quantify efficiently human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M and the genetically diverse group O.