Clinical performance of two new, fully integrated molecular platforms used for HIV-1, HBV and HCV viral load analysis, the NeuMoDx 288 and the Alinity m.

BACKGROUND: Viral load (VL) determination in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is essential for proper patient management and follow-up. New molecular platforms have been developed to fully automate these diagnostic assays. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the clinical performance of HIV-1, HBV and HCV VL assays on the Alinity m (Abbott) and NeuMoDx (Qiagen) molecular platforms. METHOD: Test panels of the three viruses have been compiled of 100 plasma and/or serum samples per target containing non-detectable, non-quantifiable and quantifiable VLs. All samples were retrospectively tested on the Alinity m and NeuMoDx platforms according to manufacturers' instructions. RESULTS: A total of 74, 86 and 66 samples with valid results for both platforms were included in the HIV-1, HBV and HCV analysis respectively. Overall qualitative agreement of the assays on both platforms was 78% for HIV-1, 93% for HBV and 100% for HCV. Quantitative agreement (less than 0.5 log difference) was shown to be 68% for HIV-1, 68% for HBV and 94% for HCV. CONCLUSION: The Alinity m and NeuMoDx HCV assay have a comparable performance. Quantification differences in the HIV-1 assay were mostly apparent in the lower VLs and under-quantification of the NeuMoDx HBV assay was observed.

Evaluation of the sample-to-result, random access NeuMoDx platform for viral load testing of Cytomegalovirus and Epstein Barr virus in clinical specimens.

BACKGROUND: The detection and follow up of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) viral loads (VL) are crucial in the management of immunocompromised patients. Recently, molecular CE-IVD assays for detection and quantification of CMV and EBV have been launched for use on the random-access and sample-to-result NeuMoDx 96 and 288 platforms (Qiagen). OBJECTIVE: Evaluating the qualitative and quantitative performance of the NeuMoDx CMV and EBV assays in clinical specimens compared to a lab developed tests (LDT) and the CE-IVD assays on the Abbott m2000 system. METHOD: Both a prospective and a retrospective panel, compiled of non-detectable (ND), non-quantifiable (NQ) and quantifiable VLs in plasma samples have been evaluated for both CMV and EBV: NeuMoDx versus LDT and NeuMoDx versus Abbott m2000. Quantitative agreement was determined for samples with a quantifiable VL on both systems. RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and LUMC's LDT CMV assays was 88%. Qualitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and Abbott m2000 CMV assays was 92% and quantitative agreement was 87%. Qualitative and quantitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and the LDT EBV assays was 87%. Qualitative agreement between the NeuMoDx and Abbott m2000 EBV assays was 91% and quantitative agreement was 0%. CONCLUSION: These data show that the NeuMoDx assays are suitable for both detection and quantification of CMV and EBV in a medium- to high throughput diagnostic setting, but that differences in sensitivity and quantification (for EBV, NeuMoDx versus Abbott m2000) warrant an extensive transition period when using the respective assays for following VL in patient samples.