Chueca Natalia, Rivadulla Isidro, Lovatti Rubén, Reina Gabriel, Blanco Ana, Fernandez-Caballero Jose Angel, Cardeñoso Laura, Rodriguez-Granjer Javier, Fernandez-Alonso Miriam, Aguilera Antonio, Alvarez Marta, Galán Juan Carlos, García Federico
Servicio de Microbiología, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Granada-Hospital San Cecilio, Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria IBS, Granada, Spain.
Departamento de Microbiología y Parasitología USC, Servicio de Microbiología Hospital Conxo-CHUS Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain.
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 20;11(4):e0153754. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153754. eCollection 2016.
We aimed to evaluate the correct assignment of HCV genotypes by three commercial methods-Trugene HCV genotyping kit (Siemens), VERSANT HCV Genotype 2.0 assay (Siemens), and Real-Time HCV genotype II (Abbott)-compared to NS5B sequencing. We studied 327 clinical samples that carried representative HCV genotypes of the most frequent geno/subtypes in Spain. After commercial genotyping, the sequencing of a 367 bp fragment in the NS5B gene was used to assign genotypes. Major discrepancies were defined, e.g. differences in the assigned genotype by one of the three methods and NS5B sequencing, including misclassification of subtypes 1a and 1b. Minor discrepancies were considered when differences at subtype levels, other than 1a and 1b, were observed. The overall discordance with the reference method was 34% for Trugene and 15% for VERSANT HCV2.0. The Abbott assay correctly identified all 1a and 1b subtypes, but did not subtype all the 2, 3, 4 and 5 (34%) genotypes. Major discordances were found in 16% of cases for Trugene HCV, and the majority were 1b- to 1a-related discordances; major discordances were found for VERSANT HCV 2.0 in 6% of cases, which were all but one 1b to 1a cases. These results indicated that the Trugene assay especially, and to a lesser extent, Versant HCV 2.0, can fail to differentiate HCV subtypes 1a and 1b, and lead to critical errors in clinical practice for correctly using directly acting antiviral agents.
我们旨在评估三种商业方法——Trugene HCV基因分型试剂盒(西门子公司)、VERSANT HCV基因型2.0检测法(西门子公司)和实时HCV基因型II检测法(雅培公司)——与NS5B测序法相比,对HCV基因型的正确分型情况。我们研究了327份临床样本,这些样本携带西班牙最常见的基因/亚型的代表性HCV基因型。在进行商业基因分型后,对NS5B基因中一个367 bp的片段进行测序以确定基因型。定义了主要差异,例如三种方法之一与NS5B测序法在指定基因型上的差异,包括1a和1b亚型的错误分类。当观察到除1a和1b之外的亚型水平差异时,则视为次要差异。Trugene法与参考方法的总体不一致率为34%,VERSANT HCV2.0为15%。雅培检测法正确鉴定了所有1a和1b亚型,但未对所有2、3、4和5型(34%)进行亚型分类。Trugene HCV在16%的病例中发现了主要差异,大多数是与1b到1a相关的差异;VERSANT HCV 2.0在6%的病例中发现了主要差异,除一例之外均为1b到1a的病例。这些结果表明,特别是Trugene检测法,以及在较小程度上VERSANT HCV 2.0,可能无法区分HCV 1a和1b亚型,并在临床实践中正确使用直接作用抗病毒药物时导致严重错误。