ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2015
Variation analysis of six HCV viral load assays using low viremic HCV samples in the range of the clinical decision points for HCV protease inhibitors.
Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity and specificity of dried blood spot samples for hepatitis C virus RNA testing.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Performance Evaluation of the Aptima Assays in Comparison with the cobas 6800 Assays for the Detection of HIV-1, HBV, and HCV in Clinical Samples.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance and Usability of the GenedriveDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Monitoring the hepatitis C care cascade using administrative claims data.The American journal of managed care · 2018Article
- Article
- Multicentric performance analysis of HCV quantification assays and its potential relevance for HCV treatment.Medical microbiology and immunology · 2016Article
- Performance of the New Aptima HCV Quant Dx Assay in Comparison to the Cobas TaqMan HCV2 Test for Use with the High Pure System in Detection and Quantification of Hepatitis C Virus RNA in Plasma or Serum.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Article
- An OPTIMIZE study retrospective analysis for management of telaprevir-treated hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients by use of the Abbott RealTime HCV RNA assay.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2015Article
- Real-Time PCR Assays for the Quantification of HCV RNA: Concordance, Discrepancies and Implications for Response Guided Therapy.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the range of clinical decision points for response-guided therapy of HCV, there is still insufficient data concerning the conformity of quantification results obtained by different assays and their correlation with the HPS/CTM v2 assay which was used for initial clinical studies. In a head-to-head comparison, assay accuracy and detection rates of six quantitative assays [artus HCV QS-RGQ, COBAS Ampliprep/COBAS TaqMan HCV v1/v2, High Pure System/COBAS TaqMan (HPS), RealTime HCV, and Versant HCV1.0] were assessed by measuring WHO and PEI standards at dilution steps near clinical decision points. Detection rates and mean differences between assays were evaluated by analyzing twenty clinical samples at 10, 100, and 1,000 IU/mL. Ten replicates from specimens with different HCV genotypes were used to analyze pan-genotypic intra-assay variation. At ≤ 25 IU/mL, RealTime demonstrated the highest detection rates. With 0.1 log difference when testing clinical samples, results obtained from the Versant and RealTime assays matched best with results from HPS. Mean difference analysis across all assay results revealed wide differences between 0.01 and 0.75 log IU/mL. RealTime showed the lowest intra-assay variation across genotypes 1-4 (25, 100, 1,000 IU/mL). There are substantial analytical differences between viral load assays clinicians should be aware of. These variations may have impact on clinical decisions for patients on HCV triple therapy and may argue for assay-specific decision points equivalent to reference values established in studies using HPS. A comparison of quantification is recommended prior to a switch of assays during ongoing therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.