HIV-1 RNA and viral load

Relucio, Karen I.; Holodniy, Mark

doi:10.1016/s0272-2712(02)00008-2

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of factors such as biological variation around the patient’s steady state, differences in handling of samples, or selection of a different assay can cause the same patient to go from “undetectable” to “detectable” without any change in that patient’s risk for success or failure [21–25]. A recent “outbreak” of detectable viremia in previously suppressed patients illustrates this point.…”

Section: Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining treatment failure in resource-rich settings

Aldous

Haubrich²

2009

Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining treatment failure in resource-rich settings

Aldous

Haubrich²

2009

Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The proportion of variability that is biological is reported to be greater than 50% of the total variability. 14,15,16,17,18,19 Therefore, unless the variability between assays is negligible, it is suggested that laboratories undergoing a platform change consider re-establishing baseline viremia levels for all HIV-1 patients currently being monitored. 6,20,21,22,23,24 Others caution against changing assay methods during serial measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Switch from Signal Amplification to COBAS® AmpliPrep/COBAS® TaqMan 48: Is There a Need to Re-Baseline?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Accurate quantitation of plasma Human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV) RNA levels is required for clinical management of HIV-1-infected patients. Several assays are used to quantify HIV RNA, and prior to implementing a change in viral load method, continuity in reported values is addressed by the laboratory and communicated to clinicians. Methods: We initially compared COBAS ® AmpliPrep-COBAS ® TaqMan 48 (TaqMan) v.1.0 (Roche) to prior methodology, branched-chain DNA (bDNA) v.3.0 (Siemens) to determine if establishment of new patient baselines were necessary. Study data from 81 specimens run by both assays were compared using nonparametric tests, e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank, Spearman. Subsets for comparison included only those that fell into overlapping ranges for both assays. Results: The methods correlated (Spearman correlation, rs = 0.91), but TaqMan values were significantly higher than those of bDNA (p<0.0001). Based upon this, new baselines (n=768) collected over 6-months were determined by running bDNA on all specimens that could be quantitated by TaqMan (n=308). Of those with sufficient quantity to establish new baselines with the TaqMan, 308 and 272 were quantifiable by TaqMan and bDNA, respectively. Parallel data within overlapping ranges (n=262) were again highly correlated (rs =0.89), but still were statistically different (p =0.0044). Additional analyses for regression and pair differences by range were run on combined (study and parallel) data. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate non-equivalence in HIV-1 RNA values of TaqMan v.1.0 as compared to bDNA v.3.0, and that new baselines for HIV viral load RNA HIV-1 should be re-established. New baselines for those patients missed by parallel testing can be calculated using regression analysis.

show abstract

“…Accurate determination of viral load is of crucial clinical importance for patients infected with HIV or suffering from AIDS (21). Presently, three methods are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, these are HIV‐RNA RT‐PCR assay (Amplicor HIV‐1 Monitor, version 1.5; Roche Molecular Systems), the branched‐chain assay (bDNA; Versant HIV RNA 3.0 Assay; Bayer Diagnostics), and the nucleic acid sequence‐based amplification (NucliSens HIV QT; bioMérieux) (22, 23), but all these tests are optimized for subtype B, which is the common strain in resource‐rich settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new affordable flow cytometry based method to measure HIV‐1 viral load

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most commercially available assays for diagnosis of HIV infection have shown shortcomings in the detection and quantification of rare genotypes of the virus. Most of the assays do not detect subtype O (outlier) and/or N (nonmajor, nonoutlier) or new circulating recombinant forms (CRFs), which are becoming more important in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, the commonly available tests require costly measuring devices and expensive test kits, which are not easily affordable for developing countries. This study was designed to explore solutions to the problem of viral load assays in developing countries. Two forward primers, digoxygenin (DIG) and dinitrophenol (DNP) labeled, and one biotin (BIO) labeled reverse primer were used to amplify both, the HIV-1-5 0 LTR (long terminal repeat) region and an internal standard sequence. The two polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-products were captured by anti-DIG and anti-DNP antibody coated microparticles. Flow cytometric analyses were carried out after labeling with streptavidin-R-phycoerythrine. The primer system used recognized all HIV-1 subtypes.

show abstract

HIV-1 RNA and viral load

Cited by 9 publications

References 93 publications

Defining treatment failure in resource-rich settings

Defining treatment failure in resource-rich settings

Switch from Signal Amplification to COBAS® AmpliPrep/COBAS® TaqMan 48: Is There a Need to Re-Baseline?

A new affordable flow cytometry based method to measure HIV‐1 viral load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About