Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
AIDS. 2019 October 1; Volume 33 (Issue 12); 1881-1889.; DOI:10.1097/QAD.0000000000002303
Sacks JA, Fong Y, Gonzalez MP, Andreotti M, Baliga S, et al.
AIDS. 2019 October 1; Volume 33 (Issue 12); 1881-1889.; DOI:10.1097/QAD.0000000000002303
BACKGROUND
Coverage of viral load testing remains low with only half of the patients in need having adequate access. Alternative technologies to high throughput centralized machines can be used to support viral load scale-up; however, clinical performance data are lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 viral load plasma assay to traditional laboratory-based technologies.
METHODS
Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 and comparator laboratory technology plasma viral load results were provided from 13 of the 19 eligible studies, which accounted for a total of 3790 paired data points. We used random effects models to determine the accuracy and misclassification at various treatment failure thresholds (detectable, 200, 400, 500, 600, 800 and 1000 copies/ml).
RESULTS
Thirty percent of viral load test results were undetectable, while 45% were between detectable and 10 000 copies/ml and the remaining 25% were above 10 000 copies/ml. The median Xpert viral load was 119 copies/ml and the median comparator viral load was 157 copies/ml, while the log10 bias was 0.04 (0.02–0.07). The sensitivity and specificity to detect treatment failure were above 95% at all treatment failure thresholds, except for detectable, at which the sensitivity was 93.33% (95% confidence interval: 88.2–96.3) and specificity was 80.56% (95% CI: 64.6–90.4).
CONCLUSION
The Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 viral load plasma assay results were highly comparable to laboratory-based technologies with limited bias and high sensitivity and specificity to detect treatment failure. Alternative specimen types and technologies that enable decentralized testing services can be considered to expand access to viral load.
Coverage of viral load testing remains low with only half of the patients in need having adequate access. Alternative technologies to high throughput centralized machines can be used to support viral load scale-up; however, clinical performance data are lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 viral load plasma assay to traditional laboratory-based technologies.
METHODS
Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 and comparator laboratory technology plasma viral load results were provided from 13 of the 19 eligible studies, which accounted for a total of 3790 paired data points. We used random effects models to determine the accuracy and misclassification at various treatment failure thresholds (detectable, 200, 400, 500, 600, 800 and 1000 copies/ml).
RESULTS
Thirty percent of viral load test results were undetectable, while 45% were between detectable and 10 000 copies/ml and the remaining 25% were above 10 000 copies/ml. The median Xpert viral load was 119 copies/ml and the median comparator viral load was 157 copies/ml, while the log10 bias was 0.04 (0.02–0.07). The sensitivity and specificity to detect treatment failure were above 95% at all treatment failure thresholds, except for detectable, at which the sensitivity was 93.33% (95% confidence interval: 88.2–96.3) and specificity was 80.56% (95% CI: 64.6–90.4).
CONCLUSION
The Cepheid Xpert HIV-1 viral load plasma assay results were highly comparable to laboratory-based technologies with limited bias and high sensitivity and specificity to detect treatment failure. Alternative specimen types and technologies that enable decentralized testing services can be considered to expand access to viral load.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisAbstract
AIDS. 2019 October 1; DOI:10.1097/QAD.0000000000002303.
Sacks JA, Fong Y, Gonzalez MP, Andreotti M, Baliga S, et al.
AIDS. 2019 October 1; DOI:10.1097/QAD.0000000000002303.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
EBioMedicine. 2017 March 19; Volume 18; 225-235.; DOI:10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.024
Rhee SY, Varghese B, Holmes SP, Van Zyl GU, Steegen K, et al.
EBioMedicine. 2017 March 19; Volume 18; 225-235.; DOI:10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.024
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) genotypic resistance defined by K65R/N and/or K70E/Q/G occurs in 20% to 60% of individuals with virological failure (VF) on a WHO-recommended TDF-containing first-line regimen. However, the full spectrum of reverse transcriptase (RT) mutations selected in individuals with VF on such a regimen is not known. To identify TDF regimen-associated mutations (TRAMs), we compared the proportion of each RT mutation in 2873 individuals with VF on a WHO-recommended first-line TDF-containing regimen to its proportion in a cohort of 50,803 antiretroviral-naïve individuals. To identify TRAMs specifically associated with TDF-selection pressure, we compared the proportion of each TRAM to its proportion in a cohort of 5805 individuals with VF on a first-line thymidine analog-containing regimen. We identified 83 TRAMs including 33 NRTI-associated, 40 NNRTI-associated, and 10 uncommon mutations of uncertain provenance. Of the 33 NRTI-associated TRAMs, 12 - A62V, K65R/N, S68G/N/D, K70E/Q/T, L74I, V75L, and Y115F - were more common among individuals receiving a first-line TDF-containing compared to a first-line thymidine analog-containing regimen. These 12 TDF-selected TRAMs will be important for monitoring TDF-associated transmitted drug-resistance and for determining the extent of reduced TDF susceptibility in individuals with VF on a TDF-containing regimen.