Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26666643›Full record

ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2016

Multicentric performance analysis of HCV quantification assays and its potential relevance for HCV treatment.

F Wiesmann, G Naeth, A Berger, H H Hirsch, S Regenass, R S Ross, C Sarrazin, H Wedemeyer, H Knechten, P Braun

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Hepatitis C virus: life cycle in cells, infection and host response, and analysis of molecular markers influencing the outcome of infection and response to therapy.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

F WiesmannPZB Aachen, HIV&Hepatitis Research Group, PZB Aachen Blondelstr. 9, Aachen, Germany. frw@pzb.de.
G NaethPZB Aachen, HIV&Hepatitis Research Group, PZB Aachen Blondelstr. 9, Aachen, Germany.
A BergerUniversity of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
H H HirschInstitute of Medical Microbiology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
S RegenassClinic for Immunology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
R S RossUniversity Hospital - National Reference Centre for HCV, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
C SarrazinUniversity of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
H WedemeyerInstitute of Virology, MHH Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
H KnechtenPZB Aachen, HIV&Hepatitis Research Group, PZB Aachen Blondelstr. 9, Aachen, Germany.
P BraunPZB Aachen, HIV&Hepatitis Research Group, PZB Aachen Blondelstr. 9, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An accurate quantification of low viremic HCV RNA plasma samples has gained importance since the approval of direct acting antivirals and since only one single measurement predicts the necessity of a prolonged or shortened therapy. As reported previously, HCV quantification assays such as Abbott RealTime HCV and Roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV version 2 (CTM v2) may vary in sensitivity and precision particularly in low-level viremia. Importantly, substantial variations were previously demonstrated between some of these assays compared to the Roche High Pure System/COBAS TaqMan assay (HPS) reference assay, which was used to establish the clinical decision points in clinical studies. In this study, the reproducibility of assay performances across several laboratories was assessed by analysing quantification results generated by six independent laboratories (3× RealTime, 3× CTM v2) in comparison with one HPS reference laboratory. The 4th WHO Standard was diluted to 100, 25 and 10 IU/ml, and aliquots were tested in triplicates in 5 independent runs by each assay in the different laboratories to assess assay precision and detection rates. In a second approach, 2 clinical samples (GT 1a & GT 1b) were diluted to 100 and 25 IU/ml and tested as described above. While the result range for WHO 100 IU/ml replicates across all laboratories was similar in this analysis, the CVs of each laboratory ranged from 19.3 to 25.6 % for RealTime laboratories and were lower than CVs of CTM v2 laboratories with a range of 26.1-47.3 %, respectively, and also in comparison with the CV of the HPS reference laboratory (34.9 %). At WHO standard dilution of 25 IU/ml, 24 replicates were quantified by RealTime compared to 8 replicates with CTM v2. Results of clinical samples again revealed a higher variation of CTM v2 results as compared to RealTime values. (CVs at 100 IU/ml: RealTime: 13.1-21.0 % and CTM v2: 15.0-32.3 %; CVs at 25 IU/ml: RealTime 17.6-34.9 % and CTM v2 28.2-54.9 %). These findings confirm the superior precision of RealTime versus CTM v2 at low-level viremia even across different laboratories including the new clinical decision point at 25 IU/ml. A highly precise monitoring of HCV viral load during therapy will remain crucial for patient management with regard to futility rules, therapy efficacy and SVR.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsDrug MonitoringHepacivirusHepatitis C, ChronicHumansReproducibility of ResultsRNA, ViralViral LoadAntiviral AgentsRNA, ViralAssay variationCOBAS TaqmanHCVRealTimeViral load

Identifiers

PMID26666643
PMCPMC4866979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.