Evaluation of the virtues and pitfalls in an HIV screening algorithm based on two fourth generation assays - A step towards an improved national algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Fourth-generation immunoassays used for HIV screening, simultaneously detect anti-HIV antibodies and HIV-1 P24 antigen, but are prone to false-positive results. Usually, they are followed by highly specific third-generation assay, able to differentiate between HIV-1/2 infections. In Israel, screening algorithm is based on consecutive testing by two fourth-generation assays and confirmation by a third-generation test. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of this algorithm. STUDY DESIGN: Architect HIV1/2 Combo (Combo) reactive results were tested by Vidas HIV Duo Ultra (VD). Confirmation was by INNO-LIA HIV 1/2 or Geenius assays. Five-year results were retrospectively analyzed. HIV true positives (TPs), acute infected (AI), false-positives (FPs) and HIV negatives, were as defined by the algorithm. RESULTS: 501,338 individuals were screened, of which 956 were TPs, 64 AI and 30 F Ps. Specificity was almost 100% and positive predictive value 97%. VD was negative in 94% of confirmed Combo false-reactive individuals. The Combo results in the first tested sample differed substantially between TPs, AI and FPs, enabling the determination of a cutoff value that distinguished 94% of TPs and AI from FPs. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm is suggested that will use a single sample collection. HIV negative diagnosis will be based on Combo unreactive or Combo reactive/VD negative results. HIV positive diagnosis will be based on Combo reactive/ VD positive results, given a Combo value above a designated cutoff. Below this cutoff samples will be tested by a molecular assay. Since HIV-2 rarely occurs in Israel, the use of a third-generation confirmation assay should be discussed.

Comparison between Roche and Xpert in HIV-1 RNA quantitation: A high concordance between the two techniques except for a CRF02_AG subtype variant with high viral load titters detected by Roche but undetected by Xpert.

BACKGROUND: HIV-1 viral load (VL) testing is important to predict viral progression and to monitor the response to antiretroviral therapy. New HIV-1 VL tests are continuously introduced to the market. Their performance is usually compared to Abbott and/or Roche HIV-1 VL assays, as reference. The Xpert HIV-1 VL test was recently introduced, but its performance compared to Roche has not been sufficiently studied. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Xpert assay with Roche and to assess its use in the HIV clinical laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 383 plasma samples of HIV-1 infected patients previously tested by Roche, were retrospectively tested by Xpert to determine concordance between the two assays. Samples included a diversity of HIV-1 subtypes and a wide range of VLs. RESULTS: There was a high concordance between the two assays, except for a CRF02_AG subtype variant with high VL titters, that was detected by Roche but undetected by Xpert. The 5' long terminal repeat gene region of this virus, targeted by the Xpert assay, was amplified and sequenced. A 25 nucleotide insert was identified, but was unmatched to any known sequences of HIV-1. This particular insert, however could not explain the false-negativity by the Xpert assay. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the challenge to routine VL testing due to the high genetic diversity of HIV-1. Clinicians should, therefore be advised that a negative VL in cases where the clinical picture does not match the laboratory report, might in fact be, a false-negative result of the VL assay.

Evaluation of a benchtop HIV ultradeep pyrosequencing drug resistance assay in the clinical laboratory.

Detection of low-abundance drug resistance mutations (DRMs) of HIV-1 is an evolving approach in clinical practice. Ultradeep pyrosequencing has shown to be effective in detecting such mutations. The lack of a standardized commercially based assay limits the wide use of this method in clinical settings. 454 Life Sciences (Roche) is developing an HIV ultradeep pyrosequencing assay for their benchtop sequencer. We assessed the prototype plate in the clinical laboratory. Plasma samples genotyped by the standardized TruGene kit were retrospectively tested by this assay. Drug-treated subjects failing therapy and drug-naive patients were included. DRM analysis was based on the International AIDS Society USA DRM list and the Stanford algorithm. The prototype assay detected all of the DRMs detected by TruGene and additional 50 low-abundance DRMs. Several patients had low-abundance D67N, K70R, and M184V reverse transcriptase inhibitor mutations that persisted long after discontinuation of the drug that elicited these mutations. Additional patient harbored low-abundance V32I major protease inhibitor mutation, which under darunavir selection evolved later to be detected by TruGene. Stanford analysis suggested that some of the low-abundance DRMs were likely to affect the resistance burden in these subjects. The prototype assay performs at least as well as TruGene and has the advantage of detecting low-abundance drug resistance mutations undetected by TruGene. Its ease of use and lab-scale platform will likely facilitate its use in the clinical laboratory. The extent to which the detection of low-abundance DRMs will affect patient management is still unknown, but it is hoped that use of such an assay in clinical practice will help resolve this important question.