Anderson Jonathan C, Simonetti Josephine, Fisher Dennis G, Williams James, Yamamura Yasuhiro, Rodriguez Nayra, Sullivan Daniel G, Gretch David R, McMahon Brian, Williams Kandace J
Biomedical Program, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, USA.
J Clin Virol. 2003 Sep;28(1):27-37. doi: 10.1016/s1386-6532(02)00235-4.
We report an interlaboratory comparison of methods for the determination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) serum load and genotype between a recently, established molecular laboratory at the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC) and two independent laboratories using different assays. At ANMC, a Real-time quantitative RT-PCR amplification methodology (QPCR) has been developed in which HCV viral loads are determined by interpolation of QPCR results to those of standards calibrated to the World Health Organization (WHO) First International Standard for HCV. HCV genotype is subsequently determined by direct sequencing of the DNA fragment generated from the QPCR assay.
The above methods were statistically compared to results obtained for the same patient sera by two independent laboratories using different commercially available viral load assays; Quantiplex HCV RNA (Bayer Diagnostics) and Amplicor HCV Monitor (v 2.0) (Roche Molecular Systems), as well as two different genotyping assays; restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and INNO-LiPA HCV II (Innogenetics).
ANMC's Real-time QPCR HCV viral load results compared moderately well with those obtained by the Quantiplex HCV RNA method (R2=0.3813), and compared quite well with recent lot numbers of Amplicor HCV Monitor in which viral loads are derived in IU/ml (R2=0.6408), but compared poorly with earlier lot numbers of Amplicor HCV Monitor in which viral loads were derived in copies/ml (R2=0.0913). The ANMC direct sequencing method for genotype determination compared moderately to very well with both the RFLP (84-86%) and INNO-LiPA (85-97.5%) methods.
These viral load comparisons highlight the discrepancies that may occur when patient HCV viral loads are monitored using different types of assays. Comparison of HCV genotype by different methods is more reliable statistically and important clinically for predicting probability of response to antiviral therapy. However, viral loads are important for monitoring response once therapy has begun.
我们报告了阿拉斯加原住民医疗中心(ANMC)一个新成立的分子实验室与另外两个使用不同检测方法的独立实验室之间,关于丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)血清载量和基因型测定方法的实验室间比较。在ANMC,已开发出一种实时定量逆转录聚合酶链反应扩增方法(QPCR),其中HCV病毒载量通过将QPCR结果与校准至世界卫生组织(WHO)HCV第一国际标准的标准品结果进行插值来确定。随后通过对QPCR检测产生的DNA片段进行直接测序来确定HCV基因型。
将上述方法与两个独立实验室使用不同市售病毒载量检测方法(Quantiplex HCV RNA(拜耳诊断公司)和Amplicor HCV Monitor(v 2.0)(罗氏分子系统公司))以及两种不同基因分型检测方法(限制性片段长度多态性(RFLP)和INNO-LiPA HCV II(Innogenetics))对同一患者血清获得的结果进行统计学比较。
ANMC的实时QPCR HCV病毒载量结果与通过Quantiplex HCV RNA方法获得的结果中度吻合(R2 = 0.3813),与近期以国际单位/毫升(IU/ml)得出病毒载量的Amplicor HCV Monitor批次结果吻合较好(R2 = 0.6408),但与早期以拷贝/毫升得出病毒载量的Amplicor HCV Monitor批次结果吻合较差(R2 = 0.0913)。ANMC用于基因型测定的直接测序方法与RFLP方法(84 - 86%)和INNO-LiPA方法(85 - 97.5%)相比,吻合程度从中度到非常好。
这些病毒载量比较突出了使用不同类型检测方法监测患者HCV病毒载量时可能出现的差异。通过不同方法比较HCV基因型在统计学上更可靠,且在临床上对于预测对抗病毒治疗的反应概率很重要。然而,一旦开始治疗,病毒载量对于监测治疗反应很重要。