BackgroundCurrent real-time PCR-based HIV-1 viral load (VL) assays allow the detection of residual viraemia in antiretroviral-treated patients. The clinical outcome of HIV1 patients experiencing low-level replication (<50 cop/mL) in comparison with fully suppressed patients is currently debated. We analysed variability of 3 VL assays <50 cop/mL, and evaluated the reproducibility of viral blips <100 cop/mL.MethodsThree commercial VL assays were tested: Versant HIV-1 RNA 1.0 kPCR (Siemens), Abbott Realtime HIV-1, and Cobas Ampliprep/Cobas Taqman HIV-1 v2.0 (Roche). Ten replicates of a reference sample at 4 low target dilutions were tested to evaluate assay variability. Prospective collection of 181 clinical samples with detectable VL <50 cop/mL was used to evaluate intra-and inter-assay variability by triplicate testing. Samples from 26 patients experiencing a viral blip were retested.ResultsAll assays showed substantial variability at low VL level: the coefficient of variation at 100, 50, 25 and 12 cop/mL ranged respectively from 32 to 44%, 35 to 68%, 41 to 83% and 33 to 77%. In the intra-assay evaluation of repeatability, 52.5 to 57.5% of detectable VL <50 cop/mL tested in triplicate showed at least one fully undetected result. Variability was similar in the inter-assay arm. The VL blips could only be reproduced in 19% of cases.ConclusionsThe most recent versions of widespread commercial VL assays showed substantial variability at low levels and residual viraemia could not be consistently reproduced. Patient outcome studies comparing residual VL to full suppression are therefore biased when using commercial assays.

To improve insight in the drivers of local HIV-1 transmission in Belgium, phylogenetic, demographic, epidemiological and laboratory data from patients newly diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were combined and analyzed. Characteristics of clustered patients, paired patients and patients on isolated branches in the phylogenetic tree were compared. The results revealed an overall high level of clustering despite the short time frame of sampling, with 47.6% of all patients having at least one close genetic counterpart and 36.6% belonging to a cluster of 3 or more individuals. Compared to patients on isolated branches, patients in clusters more frequently reported being infected in Belgium (95.1% vs. 47.6%; p < 0.001), were more frequently men having sex with men (MSM) (77.9% vs. 42.8%; p < 0.001), of Belgian origin (68.2% vs. 32.9%; p < 0.001), male gender (92.6% vs. 65.8%; p < 0.001), infected with subtype B or F (87.8% vs. 43.4%; p < 0.001) and diagnosed early after infection (55.4% vs. 29.0%; p < 0.001). Strikingly, Sub-Saharan Africans (SSA), overall representing 27.1% of the population were significantly less frequently found in clusters than on individual branches (6.0% vs. 41.8%; p < 0.001). Of the SSA that participated in clustered transmission, 66.7% were MSM and this contrasts sharply with the overall 12.0% of SSA reporting MSM. Transmission clusters with SSA were more frequently non-B clusters than transmission clusters without SSA (44.4% versus 18.2%). MSM-driven clusters with patients of mixed origin may account, at least in part, for the increasing spread of non-B subtypes to the native MSM population, a cross-over that has been particularly successful for subtype F and CRF02_AG. The main conclusions from this study are that clustered transmission in Belgium remains almost exclusively MSM-driven with very limited contribution of SSA. There were no indications for local ongoing clustered transmission of HIV-1 among SSA.

No abstract

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) non-B subtype infections occurred in Belgium since the 1980s, mainly amongst migrants and heterosexuals, whereas subtype B predominated in men-having-sex-with-men (MSM). In the last decade, the diagnosis of F1 sub-subtype in particular has increased substantially, which prompted us to perform a detailed reconstruction of its epidemiological history. To this purpose, the Belgian AIDS Reference Laboratories collected HIV-1 pol sequences from all sub-subtype F1-infected patients for whom genotypic drug resistance testing was requested as part of routine clinical follow-up. This data was complemented with HIV-1 pol sequences from countries with a high burden of F1 infections or a potential role in the global origin of sub-subtype F1. The molecular epidemiology of the Belgian subtype F1 epidemic was investigated using Bayesian phylogenetic inference and transmission dynamics were characterized based on birth-death models. F1 sequences were retained from 297 patients diagnosed and linked to care in Belgium between 1988 and 2015. Phylogenetic inference indicated that among the 297 Belgian F1 sequences, 191 belonged to a monophyletic group that mainly contained sequences from people likely infected in Belgium (OR 26.67, 95% CI 9.59–74.15), diagnosed in Flanders (OR 7.28, 95% CI 4.23–12.53), diagnosed at a recent stage of infection (OR 7.19, 95% CI 2.88-17.95) or declared to be MSM (OR 34.8, 95% CI 16.0–75.6). Together with a Spanish clade, this Belgian clade was embedded in the genetic diversity of Brazilian subtype F1 strains and most probably emerged after one or only a few migration events from Brazil to the European continent before 2002. The origin of the Belgian outbreak was dated back to 2002 (95% higher posterior density 2000–2004) and birth-death models suggested that its extensive growth had been controlled ( R e < 1) by 2012, coinciding with a time period where delay in antiretroviral treatment initiation substantially declined. In conclusion, phylogenetic reconstruction of the Belgian HIV-1 sub-subtype F1 epidemic illustrates the introduction and substantial dissemination of viral strains in a geographically restricted risk group that was most likely controlled by effective treatment as prevention.