ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2015
Comparison of Three Different FDA-Approved Plasma HIV-1 RNA Assay Platforms Confirms the Virologic Failure Endpoint of 200 Copies per Milliliter Despite Improved Assay Sensitivity.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of External Quality Control Material for HIV-1 RNA Testing To Assess the Comparability of Data Generated in Separate Laboratories and the Stability of HIV-1 RNA in Samples after Prolonged Storage.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Trial
- Antiretroviral Therapy Within 2 Years of HIV Acquisition Is Associated With Fewer Viral Blips: A Retrospective Analysis of More Than 20 Years of Data From the US Military HIV Natural History Study.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- Review
- HIV-Related Stigma and Viral Suppression Among African-American Women: Exploring the Mediating Roles of Depression and ART Nonadherence.AIDS and behavior · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Discrepancies between HIV-1 RNA results assayed by different FDA-approved platforms have been reported. Plasma samples collected from 332 randomly selected clinical trial participants during the second year of antiretroviral treatment were assayed with three FDA-approved platforms: UltraSensitive Roche Amplicor Monitor, v1.5 (Monitor), the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 test on the m2000 system (Abbott), and the Roche TaqMan HIV-1 test, v2.0 (TaqMan). Samples from 61 additional participants with confirmed HIV-1 RNA levels of >50 copies/ml during trial follow-up were also included. Endpoints were HIV-1 RNA quantification of ≤50 copies/ml versus >50 copies/ml at an individual-sample level (primary) and determination of confirmed virologic failure (VF) from longitudinal samples. A total of 389 participants had results obtained from all assays on at least one sample (median = 6). Proportions of results of >50 copies/ml were 19% (Monitor), 22% (TaqMan), and 25% (Abbott). Despite indication of strong agreement (Cohen's kappa, 0.76 to 0.82), Abbott was more likely to detect HIV-1 RNA levels of >50 copies/ml than Monitor (matched-pair odds ratio [mOR] = 4.2; modified Obuchowski P < 0.001) and TaqMan (mOR = 2.1; P < 0.001); TaqMan was more likely than Monitor (mOR = 2.6; P < 0.001). Despite strong agreement in classifying VF across assay comparisons (kappa, 0.75 to 0.92), at a 50-copies/ml threshold, differences in the probability of VF classification (in the same direction as primary) were apparent (all McNemar's P < 0.007). At a 200-copies/ml VF threshold, no differences between assays were apparent (all P > 0.13). Despite strong agreement among assays, significant differences were observed with respect to detecting HIV-1 RNA levels of >50 copies/ml and identifying VF at the 50-copies/ml threshold. This has important implications for the definition of VF in clinical trials and clinical practice.
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.