Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022 Oct 1;91(2):189-196. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000003037. Epub 2022 Jun 13.
We aimed to evaluate the analytic performance of 3 rapid HIV viral load assays: the novel Xpert HIV-1 VL XC (Xpert XC), Xpert HIV-1 VL (Xpert VL), and m-PIMA HIV-1/2 VL (m-PIMA).
Two South African clinics.
We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Site-laboratory technicians and nurses used the Xpert XC, Xpert VL, and m-PIMA to test plasma samples from people with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy. We compared results with the Roche cobas HIV-1 reference assay. We determined accuracy to detect viraemia at the World Health Organization (WHO) failure threshold of 1000 copies/mL on all 3 assays, and 50 and 200 copies/mL on the Xpert assays. We assessed the agreement using Bland-Altman plots.
We enrolled 140 participants (98 [70%] women, median age 37 years), who provided 189 paired samples at one or more timepoints. We tested 174 samples with the Xpert XC, 188 with the Xpert VL, and 128 with the m-PIMA. At 1000 copies/mL, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence intervals) were 97% (82 to 100) and 98% (93 to 99) (Xpert XC), 100% (87 to 100) and 96% (91 to 98) (Xpert VL), and 92% (72 to 99) and 99% (93 to 100) (m-PIMA) respectively. At 50 copies/mL, sensitivity and specificity were 93% (81 to 98) and 96% (91 to 99) (Xpert XC), and 95% (84 to 99) and 95% (90 to 98) (Xpert VL) respectively. Mean bias was -0.10 (-0.54 to 0.34) log10 copies/mL (Xpert XC), 0.07 (-0.37 to 0.52) log10 copies/mL (Xpert VL), and -0.26 (-0.83 to 0.31) log10 copies/mL (m-PIMA).
In these South African clinics, the accuracy of all 3 assays was clinically acceptable to detect viraemia at the WHO failure threshold, whereas both Xpert assays were also accurate at detecting low-level viraemia.
我们旨在评估三种快速 HIV 病毒载量检测方法的分析性能:新型 Xpert HIV-1 VL XC(Xpert XC)、Xpert HIV-1 VL(Xpert VL)和 m-PIMA HIV-1/2 VL(m-PIMA)。
南非的两家诊所。
我们进行了一项前瞻性诊断准确性研究。现场实验室技术人员和护士使用 Xpert XC、Xpert VL 和 m-PIMA 测试接受抗逆转录病毒治疗的 HIV 感染者的血浆样本。我们将结果与罗氏 cobas HIV-1 参考检测进行了比较。我们确定了在所有三种检测方法上检测到世界卫生组织(WHO)失败阈值为 1000 拷贝/mL 的病毒血症的准确性,以及在 Xpert 检测方法上检测到 50 和 200 拷贝/mL 的病毒血症的准确性。我们使用 Bland-Altman 图评估了一致性。
我们招募了 140 名参与者(98 [70%] 名女性,中位年龄 37 岁),他们在一个或多个时间点提供了 189 对样本。我们用 Xpert XC 检测了 174 个样本,用 Xpert VL 检测了 188 个样本,用 m-PIMA 检测了 128 个样本。在 1000 拷贝/mL 时,灵敏度和特异性(95%置信区间)分别为 97%(82 至 100)和 98%(93 至 99)(Xpert XC)、100%(87 至 100)和 96%(91 至 98)(Xpert VL)以及 92%(72 至 99)和 99%(93 至 100)(m-PIMA)。在 50 拷贝/mL 时,灵敏度和特异性分别为 93%(81 至 98)和 96%(91 至 99)(Xpert XC)以及 95%(84 至 99)和 95%(90 至 98)(Xpert VL)。平均偏差为 -0.10(-0.54 至 0.34)log10 拷贝/mL(Xpert XC)、0.07(-0.37 至 0.52)log10 拷贝/mL(Xpert VL)和 -0.26(-0.83 至 0.31)log10 拷贝/mL(m-PIMA)。
在这些南非诊所中,所有三种检测方法的准确性在临床上都可以接受,可用于检测 WHO 失败阈值的病毒血症,而 Xpert 两种检测方法也可准确检测低水平病毒血症。