These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comprehensive comparison of the VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA) and COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.5 assays on 1,000 clinical specimens.
    Author: Galli R, Merrick L, Friesenhahn M, Ziermann R.
    Journal: J Clin Virol; 2005 Dec; 34(4):245-52. PubMed ID: 16286047.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level is an important parameter for patient management, yet viral load assays from different manufacturers are not standardized. OBJECTIVES AND STUDY DESIGN: In this study, we evaluated the concordance between test results obtained for 1,000 plasma specimens collected from HIV-1-infected individuals measured with the VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 assay (bDNA) and the COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.5 test (PCR). We compared viral load values obtained by each of these assays throughout their dynamic ranges, with particular focus on samples with low viral load (i.e. 50-250 copies/mL), and calculated the estimated distribution of distinct plasma viral load levels for the entire study population modeled from the data observed in the study. RESULTS: We found that these two assays show excellent agreement, with a correlation (R(2)) of 0.957 and a slope of 1.004. The mean difference in viral load values between the two assays was less than 0.10-log(10) throughout the dynamic range and 98.2% of all samples had bDNA and PCR results within 0.5-log(10) of each other, a difference that is within the range considered to be a minimal change in plasma viremia. Moreover, the two assays show very similar results across all assay ranges tested. The estimated prevalence of samples with results <50 copies/mL, 50-250 copies/mL, and 250-500,000 copies/mL were 41.6%, 7.7%, and 49.7%, respectively, by the bDNA assay, and 42.4%, 6.9%, and 50.7%, respectively, by the PCR assay. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings from 1,000 clinical specimens, we do not see the need to re-establish a baseline value or apply a conversion factor when switching from one assay to the other. Since the majority of our patient population likely is infected with subtype B virus, it is unclear if our findings will apply to other patient populations with a greater incidence of infection with non-B subtypes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]