Occult HBV Infection in Patients Infected by HIV or HCV: Comparison between HBV-DNA and Two Assays for HBsAg.

We investigated the frequency and serological correlates of occult hepatitis B virus infection (OBI) and the potential impact of a highly sensitive assay for HBsAg in subjects infected by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV), who are also at risk for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, often in an occult form. Samples from 499 patients with HIV, all HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive, and 137 patients with HCV were tested for HBV-DNA, anti-HBc, anti-HBs, and HBsAg by a conventional and highly sensitive assay. HBV biomarkers were detected in 71.5% of HCV-RNA-positive, with a higher prevalence of cases positive only for anti-HBc in patients with HCV than in those with HIV. HBV-DNA was detectable in 0.6% of HIV-positive and 7.3% of HCV-RNA-positive patients. Among patients with HCV, four were positive for HBsAg and negative for HBV-DNA, bringing the rate of HBV-active infection in this group to 10.2%. Active HBV infection was not related to gender or specific patterns of HBV biomarkers but was higher in HCV patients coinfected by HIV compared to those infected only by HCV. Monitoring patients at high risk for HBV infection and reactivation may require testing for both HBV-DNA and HBsAg.

Improving clinical laboratory efficiency: a time-motion evaluation of the Abbott m2000 RealTime and Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan PCR systems for the simultaneous quantitation of HIV-1 RNA and HCV RNA.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic laboratories need automation that facilitates efficient processing and workflow management to meet today's challenges for expanding services and reducing cost, yet maintaining the highest levels of quality. METHODS: Processing efficiency of two commercially available automated systems for quantifying HIV-1 and HCV RNA, Abbott m2000 system and Roche COBAS Ampliprep/COBAS TaqMan 96 (docked) systems (CAP/CTM), was evaluated in a mid/high throughput workflow laboratory using a representative daily workload of 24 HCV and 72 HIV samples. Three test scenarios were evaluated: A) one run with four batches on the CAP/CTM system, B) two runs on the Abbott m2000 and C) one run using the Abbott m2000 maxCycle feature (maxCycle) for co-processing these assays. Cycle times for processing, throughput and hands-on time were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall processing cycle time was 10.3, 9.1 and 7.6 h for Scenarios A), B) and C), respectively. Total hands-on time for each scenario was, in order, 100.0 (A), 90.3 (B) and 61.4 min (C). CONCLUSIONS: The interface of an automated analyzer to the laboratory workflow, notably system set up for samples and reagents and clean up functions, are as important as the automation capability of the analyzer for the overall impact to processing efficiency and operator hands-on time.