Wiesmann F, Naeth G, Berger A, Hirsch H H, Regenass S, Ross R S, Sarrazin C, Wedemeyer H, Knechten H, Braun P
PZB Aachen, HIV&Hepatitis Research Group, PZB Aachen Blondelstr. 9, Aachen, Germany.
University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Med Microbiol Immunol. 2016 Jun;205(3):263-8. doi: 10.1007/s00430-015-0443-9. Epub 2015 Dec 14.
An accurate quantification of low viremic HCV RNA plasma samples has gained importance since the approval of direct acting antivirals and since only one single measurement predicts the necessity of a prolonged or shortened therapy. As reported previously, HCV quantification assays such as Abbott RealTime HCV and Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV version 2 (CTM v2) may vary in sensitivity and precision particularly in low-level viremia. Importantly, substantial variations were previously demonstrated between some of these assays compared to the Roche High Pure System/COBAS TaqMan assay (HPS) reference assay, which was used to establish the clinical decision points in clinical studies. In this study, the reproducibility of assay performances across several laboratories was assessed by analysing quantification results generated by six independent laboratories (3× RealTime, 3× CTM v2) in comparison with one HPS reference laboratory. The 4th WHO Standard was diluted to 100, 25 and 10 IU/ml, and aliquots were tested in triplicates in 5 independent runs by each assay in the different laboratories to assess assay precision and detection rates. In a second approach, 2 clinical samples (GT 1a & GT 1b) were diluted to 100 and 25 IU/ml and tested as described above. While the result range for WHO 100 IU/ml replicates across all laboratories was similar in this analysis, the CVs of each laboratory ranged from 19.3 to 25.6 % for RealTime laboratories and were lower than CVs of CTM v2 laboratories with a range of 26.1-47.3 %, respectively, and also in comparison with the CV of the HPS reference laboratory (34.9 %). At WHO standard dilution of 25 IU/ml, 24 replicates were quantified by RealTime compared to 8 replicates with CTM v2. Results of clinical samples again revealed a higher variation of CTM v2 results as compared to RealTime values. (CVs at 100 IU/ml: RealTime: 13.1-21.0 % and CTM v2: 15.0-32.3 %; CVs at 25 IU/ml: RealTime 17.6-34.9 % and CTM v2 28.2-54.9 %). These findings confirm the superior precision of RealTime versus CTM v2 at low-level viremia even across different laboratories including the new clinical decision point at 25 IU/ml. A highly precise monitoring of HCV viral load during therapy will remain crucial for patient management with regard to futility rules, therapy efficacy and SVR.
自从直接作用抗病毒药物获批以来,以及由于仅单次测量就能预测延长或缩短治疗的必要性,准确量化低病毒血症的丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)RNA血浆样本变得愈发重要。如先前报道,HCV定量检测方法,如雅培实时HCV检测法和罗氏COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV v2版(CTM v2),在灵敏度和精密度方面可能存在差异,尤其是在低水平病毒血症情况下。重要的是,先前已证明,与罗氏高纯系统/COBAS TaqMan检测法(HPS)参考检测法相比,其中一些检测方法之间存在显著差异,而HPS参考检测法用于在临床研究中确定临床决策点。在本研究中,通过分析六个独立实验室(3个实时检测法实验室、3个CTM v2实验室)与一个HPS参考实验室生成的定量结果,评估了多个实验室检测性能的可重复性。将第4版世界卫生组织标准品稀释至100、25和10 IU/ml,并由不同实验室的每种检测方法在5次独立检测中对每份样品进行一式三份检测,以评估检测精密度和检测率。在第二种方法中,将2份临床样本(基因1a型和基因1b型)稀释至100和25 IU/ml,并按上述方法进行检测。虽然在此分析中所有实验室对世界卫生组织100 IU/ml重复样本的结果范围相似,但实时检测法实验室的每个实验室的变异系数(CV)范围为19.3%至25.6%,低于CTM v2实验室的变异系数,CTM v2实验室的变异系数范围分别为26.1%至47.3%,与HPS参考实验室的变异系数(34.9%)相比也是如此。在世界卫生组织标准品稀释至25 IU/ml时,实时检测法定量了24份重复样本,而CTM v2检测法仅定量了8份重复样本。临床样本的结果再次显示,与实时检测法的值相比,CTM v2结果的变异更大。(100 IU/ml时的变异系数:实时检测法为13.1%至21.0%,CTM v2为15.0%至32.3%;25 IU/ml时的变异系数:实时检测法为17.6%至34.9%,CTM v2为28.2%至54.9%)。这些发现证实,即使在包括新的25 IU/ml临床决策点在内的不同实验室中,实时检测法在低水平病毒血症时的精密度也优于CTM v2。在治疗期间对HCV病毒载量进行高度精确的监测对于患者管理中关于治疗无效规则、治疗效果和持续病毒学应答仍至关重要。