Clinical Comparison of an Enhanced-Sensitivity Branched-DNA Assay and Reverse Transcription-PCR for Quantitation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 RNA in Plasma

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The performance characteristics of an enhanced-sensitivity branched-DNA assay (bDNA) (Quantiplex HIV-1 version 2.0; Chiron Corp., Emeryville, Calif.) and a reverse transcription (RT)-PCR assay (AMPLICOR HIV-1 Monitor; Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Branchburg, N.J.) were compared in a molecular diagnostic laboratory. Samples used in this evaluation included linearity and reproducibility panels made by dilution of a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) stock culture of known virus particle count in HIV-1-negative plasma, a subtype panel consisting of HIV-1 subtypes A through F at a standardized level, and 64 baseline plasma specimens from HIV-1-infected individuals. Plots of log 10 HIV RNA copies per milliliter versus log 10 nominal virus particles per milliliter demonstrated that both assays were linear over the stated dynamic ranges (bDNA, r = 0.98; RT-PCR, r = 0.99), but comparison of the slopes of the regression lines (bDNA, m = 0.96; RT-PCR, m = 0.83) suggested that RT-PCR had greater proportional systematic error. The between-run coefficients of variation for bDNA and RT-PCR were 24.3 and 34.3%, respectively, for a sample containing 1,650 nominal virus particles/ml and 44.0 and 42.7%, respectively, for a sample containing 165 nominal virus particles/ml. Subtypes B, C, and D were quantitated with similar efficiencies by bDNA and RT-PCR; however, RT-PCR was less efficient in quantitating subtypes A, E, and F. One non-B subtype was recognized in our clinical specimens based on the ratio of values obtained with the two methods. HIV-1 RNA was quantitated in 53 (83%) baseline plasma specimens by bDNA and in 55 (86%) specimens by RT-PCR. RT-PCR values were consistently greater than bDNA values, with population means of 142,419 and 67,580 copies/ml, respectively ( P < 0.01). The results were highly correlated ( r = 0.91), but the agreement was poor (mean difference in log 10 copies per milliliter ± 2 standard deviations, 0.45 ± 0.61) for the 50 clinical specimens that gave discrete values with both methods.