Multicenter clinical comparative evaluation of Alinity m HIV-1 assay performance.

BACKGROUND: Accurate, rapid detection of HIV-1 RNA is critical for early diagnosis, treatment decision making, and long-term management of HIV-1 infection. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Alinity m HIV-1 assay, which uses a dual target/dual probe design against highly conserved target regions of the HIV-1 genome and is run on the fully automated Alinity m platform. STUDY DESIGN: This was an international, multisite study that compared the diagnostic performance of the Alinity m HIV-1 assay to four commercially available HIV-1 assays routinely used in nine independent clinical laboratories. Alinity m HIV-1 assay precision, detectability, and reproducibility was compared across four study sites. RESULTS: The Alinity m HIV-1 assay produced comparable results to currently available HIV-1 assays (correlation coefficient >0.995), with an overall bias of -0.1 to 0.10 Log10 copies/mL. The Alinity m HIV-1 assay and its predecessor m2000 HIV-1 assay demonstrated comparable detection of 16 different HIV-1 subtypes (R2 = 0.956). A high level of agreement (>88 %) between all HIV-1 assays was seen near clinical decision points of 1.7 Log10 copies/mL (50 copies/mL) and 2.0 Log10 copies/mL (200 copies/mL). Alinity m HIV-1 assay precision was 0.08 and 0.21 Log10 copies/mL at VLs of 1000 and 50 copies/mL, respectively, with a high level of detectability (≥97 % hit rate) and reproducibility across sites. CONCLUSIONS: The Alinity m HIV-1 assay provides comparable diagnostic accuracy to current HIV-1 assays, and when run on the Alinity m system, has the capacity to shorten the time between diagnosis and treatment.

Analysis of transmitted HIV drug resistance from 2005 to 2015 in Victoria, Australia: a comparison of the old and the new.

Background Baseline genotyping is part of standard-of-care treatment. It reveals that transmitted drug resistance (TDR) continues to be important for the management of HIV infection. Attention is typically focused on determining whether resistance to the protease inhibitors (PI) and reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI) occurs. However, the increasing use of integrase inhibitors (INIs) raises a concern that TDR to this class of antiretroviral drug may also occur. METHODS: PI and RTI drug resistance genotyping was performed on blood samples collected between 2005 and 2015 from 772 treatment-naïve Victorian patients infected with HIV within the previous 12 months. Integrase genotyping was performed on 461 of the 485 patient samples collected between 2010 and 2015. RESULTS: In the period 2005-10, 39 of 343 patients (11.4%) had at least one PI- or RTI-associated mutation, compared with 34 of 429 (7.9%) during the period 2011-15. Compared with 2005-10, during 2011-15 there was a significant decline in the prevalence of the non-nucleoside-associated mutation K103N and the nucleoside-associated mutations at codons M41 and T215. One patient was detected with a major INI resistance mutation, namely G118R. However, this mutation is rare and its effect on susceptibility is unclear. A small number of patients (n=12) was infected with HIV containing accessory resistance mutations in the integrase gene. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of transmitted resistance to INIs is consistent with a low level of resistance to this class of drugs in the treated population. However, continued surveillance in the newly infected population is warranted as the use of INIs increases.

Molecular and epidemiological features of gastroenteritis outbreaks involving genogroup I norovirus in Victoria, Australia, 2002-2010.

GI noroviruses are relatively rare and systematic studies of the molecular epidemiology of GI norovirus outbreaks are lacking. The current study examined the molecular virology of GI norovirus outbreaks in Victoria, Australia (2002-2010). Of 1,617 norovirus outbreaks identified, 69 (4.3%) were associated with GI norovirus alone, 1,540 (95.2%) with GII norovirus alone and 8 (0.5%) with GI + GII. Some differences between GI and GII outbreak epidemiology were found. GI outbreaks peaked in the 2-month period November/December whereas GII outbreaks peaked in the 2-month period September/October and GI norovirus outbreaks were significantly more common in non-healthcare settings (37.7%) than GII outbreaks (9.5%). ORF 1/ORF 2 genotypes found in the 69 outbreaks involving GI norovirus alone were: GI.2/GI.2, 7 outbreaks; GI.2/GI.6, 18 outbreaks; GI.3b/GI.3, 14 outbreaks; GI.4/GI.4, 21 outbreaks; GI.8/GI.8, one outbreak; GI.d/GI.3, four outbreaks; and GI.e/GI.13, one outbreak. The current study appears to be the first to have identified the recombinant form, GI.2/GI.6. Whereas GI.2/GI.6 and GI.3b/GI.3 outbreaks occurred with equal frequency in both healthcare and non-healthcare settings, GI.4/GI.4 occurred predominantly in healthcare settings. GI ORF 1/ORF 2 genotypes found in the eight outbreaks involving GI + GII norovirus were GI.2/GI.6, GI.3b/GI.3, and GI.4/GI.4, indicating GI genotypes in GI + GII outbreaks were similar to those found in outbreaks involving GI alone. Apparent differences in the evolution of different GI genotypes were noted. GI.2/GI.2, GI.2/GI.6, and GI.4/GI.4 strains tended to undergo periodic shifts in nucleotide sequence whereas various GI.3b/GI.3 strains tended to circulate simultaneously.

Evaluation of the RIDA(®)QUICK immunochromatographic norovirus detection assay using specimens from Australian gastroenteritis incidents.

A range of laboratory methods is now available for the detection of norovirus, a major cause of gastroenteritis. Recently, a commercial immunochromatographic assay for norovirus detection, the RIDA(®)QUICK assay, has become available, but there is still only limited information on its efficacy. This study examined the sensitivity and specificity of the RIDA(®)QUICK assay, using faecal material received for testing in a major diagnostic/reference laboratory in Australia. The sensitivity of the assay was found to be 83% and the specificity was 100%. No false positive norovirus results were found and the assay did not cross-react with common faecal viruses such as rotavirus, astrovirus, sapovirus and adenovirus. The assay was less reliable for genogroup I (GI) noroviruses than for genogroup II (GII) noroviruses. Genotypes detected by the assay included GII.1, GII.2, GII.3, GII.4, GII.6 and GII.7. The assay failed to detect any GI specimens in the test group. Genotypes not detected included GI.4 and GI.6. The assay was simple and quick to perform. It is valuable in a point-of-care situation or as a backup in a laboratory where a rapid initial norovirus result is required.

Molecular and epidemiological characteristics of norovirus associated with community-based sporadic gastroenteritis incidents and norovirus outbreaks in Victoria, Australia, 2002-2007.

OBJECTIVES: The molecular and epidemiological features of community-based norovirus-associated sporadic gastroenteritis incidents (NASGIs) are poorly understood. This study examined these features and compared the findings with studies of community-based and institutional norovirus-associated gastroenteritis outbreaks (NAGOs). METHODS: Fecal specimens from NASGIs and NAGOs that occurred in Victoria, Australia (2002-2007) were tested for norovirus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction methodology. Norovirus genotype was determined by nucleotide sequence analysis. RESULTS: 106 community-based NASGIs, 116 community-based NAGOs and 902 institutional NAGOs were identified. The mean age and gender ratio of individuals associated with community-based NASGIs and community-based NAGOs were similar but differed from that found for institutional NAGOs. Although GII.4 was the predominant genotype associated with all three incident types, the mix of genotypes was similar for community-based NASGIs and community-based NAGOs but that for institutional NAGOs was different. All three incident types had a similar seasonal periodicity due to the pronounced seasonal periodicity of GII.4 incidents. CONCLUSIONS: The molecular and epidemiological features of noroviruses associated with community-based NASGIs and community-based NAGOs are similar but are different from those found for institutional NAGOs.