Steegen Kim, Luchters Stanley, De Cabooter Nancy, Reynaerts Jacqueline, Mandaliya Kishor, Plum Jean, Jaoko Walter, Verhofstede Chris, Temmerman Marleen
International Centre for Reproductive Health, University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
J Virol Methods. 2007 Dec;146(1-2):178-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2007.06.019. Epub 2007 Aug 7.
There is an urgent need for low-cost assays for HIV-1 quantitation to ensure adequate follow-up of HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited countries. Two low-cost viral load assays are evaluated, a reverse transcriptase activity assay (ExavirLoad v2, Cavidi) and a real-time reverse transcriptase PCR assay (Generic HIV viral load, Biocentric). Both tests were compared with the ultrasensitive HIV Amplicor Monitor assay. Samples were collected in Mombasa, Kenya, from 20 HIV-1 seronegative and 150 HIV-1 seropositive individuals of whom 50 received antiretroviral treatment (ART). The ExavirLoad and the Generic HIV viral load assay were performed in a local laboratory in Mombasa, the Amplicor Monitor assay (version 1.5, Roche Diagnostics) was performed in Ghent, Belgium. ExavirLoad and Generic HIV viral load reached a sensitivity of 98.3% and 100% and a specificity of 80.0% and 90.0%, respectively. Linear regression analyses revealed good correlations between the Amplicor Monitor and the Generic HIV viral load (r=0.935, p<0.001) with high accuracy (100.1%), good precision (5.5%) and a low percent similarity coefficient of variation (5.4%). Bland-Altman analysis found 95% of the samples within clinically acceptable limits of agreement (-1.19 to 0.87logcopies/ml). Although, the ExavirLoad also showed a good linear correlation with the Amplicor Monitor (r=0.901, p<0.001), a problem with false positive results was more significant. The cost per test remains relatively high (US$ 30 for ExavirLoad and US$ 20 for the Generic HIV viral load). Hence, false positive results and the need for an expensive PCR instrument for the Generic HIV viral load assays still limit the implementation of these tests in less equipped, less experienced laboratories.
在资源有限的国家,迫切需要低成本的HIV-1定量检测方法,以确保对接受抗逆转录病毒疗法(ART)的HIV感染患者进行充分的随访。对两种低成本的病毒载量检测方法进行了评估,一种是逆转录酶活性检测法(ExavirLoad v2,Cavidi公司),另一种是实时逆转录酶PCR检测法(通用HIV病毒载量检测,Biocentric公司)。将这两种检测方法与超灵敏的HIV Amplicor监测检测法进行了比较。样本在肯尼亚蒙巴萨采集,来自20名HIV-1血清阴性个体和150名HIV-1血清阳性个体,其中50人接受了抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)。ExavirLoad检测法和通用HIV病毒载量检测法在蒙巴萨的当地实验室进行,Amplicor监测检测法(1.5版,罗氏诊断公司)在比利时根特进行。ExavirLoad检测法和通用HIV病毒载量检测法的灵敏度分别达到98.3%和100%,特异性分别为80.0%和90.0%。线性回归分析显示,Amplicor监测检测法与通用HIV病毒载量检测法之间具有良好的相关性(r=0.935,p<0.001),具有高精度(100.1%)、良好的精密度(5.5%)和低百分比相似性变异系数(5.4%)。Bland-Altman分析发现,95%的样本在临床可接受的一致性范围内(-1.19至0.87log拷贝/ml)。虽然ExavirLoad检测法与Amplicor监测检测法也显示出良好的线性相关性(r=0.901,p<0.001),但假阳性结果的问题更为显著。每次检测的成本仍然相对较高(ExavirLoad检测法为30美元,通用HIV病毒载量检测法为20美元)。因此,假阳性结果以及通用HIV病毒载量检测法需要昂贵的PCR仪器,这仍然限制了这些检测方法在设备较差、经验较少的实验室中的应用。