Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 9, 2025

An Affordable HIV-1 Drug Resistance Monitoring Method for Resource Limited Settings
Published on: March 30, 2014
Comparison of the Performance of Commercially Available Quantitative Viral Load Assays Using Clinical Samples from
Maria Cecilia Araripe Sucupira1, Mauro Schechter1,2, Adauto Castelo Filho1
1Infectious Diseases Division, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
None:
HIV RNA plasma viral load (VL) is the standard surrogate marker to monitor response to antiretroviral treatment (ART). We compared the linearity, repeatability, and concordance of six commercially available HIV RNA VL platforms using clinical samples from patients from Brazilian sites where different HIV-1 subtypes co-circulate. A total of 150 plasma samples from each city were collected in Curitiba, Southern Brazil (subtype C), São Paulo (subtype B), and Santos (BF recombinants), Southeast Brazil. Platforms were VERSANT® Siemens HIV RNA 1.0 (kPCR); VERSANT® Siemens HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA); Abbott Real-Time HIV-1; NucliSens EasyQ® HIV-1 v2.0 Biomerieux; COBAS® TaqMan®, Roche; and artus HIV Virus-1 RT-PCR, QIAGEN. OptiQuant HIV-1 RNA quantification panel was used to compare VL linearity, using samples containing 50, 500,5,000, 50,000, 500,000, and 5,000,000 HIV copies/mL. HIV RNA panels with subtypes A, B, C, D, F, G, H, circulating recombinant form (CRF)1, and CRF2 were utilized. A high degree of linearity and repeatability was demonstrated for all platforms. When compared with a subtype B reference sample, 17 of 54 (31.48%) samples diverged by more than 0.5 log10 copies/mL. Except for the Roche platform, all platforms underestimated subtype C VLs. A total of 743 (82.6%) valid results were obtained with samples from São Paulo, 707 (78.6%) from Santos, and 673 (74.8%) from Curitiba (São Paulo vs. Santos, p = .03; São Paulo vs. Curitiba, p = .00006; Santos vs. Curitiba, p = .06). The number of discordant samples between different methodologies when VL was undetectable in one method and detectable in the other ranged from 1.25% (Abbot vs. Siemens) to 44.8% (Abbott vs. Biomerieux). Finding samples with undetectable VL in one method and a high VL in another might have important individual and public health consequences. Standardization of VL measurements, particularly for non-B subtypes infections, especially subtype C, is necessary to maximize the individual and public health benefits of ART globally.
More Related Videos
13:58Amplifying and Quantifying HIV-1 RNA in HIV Infected Individuals with Viral Loads Below the Limit of Detection by Standard Clinical Assays
Published on: September 26, 2011
07:06Prediction of HIV-1 Coreceptor Usage Tropism by Sequence Analysis using a Genotypic Approach
Published on: December 1, 2011