Reliability at the Lower Limits of HIV-1 RNA Quantification in Clinical Samples: A Comparison of RT-PCR versus bDNA Assays

INTRODUCTION:To explore whether an assay change was responsible for an increasing proportion of patients with undetectable HIV viral loads at our urban HIV clinic, we selected highly stable patients, examining their viral loads before and after changing assays. We compared the proportion with detectable viremia during RT-PCR vs. bDNA periods. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:We selected patients with > or =1 viral loads assessed during both RT-PCR and bDNA periods. We included patients with stable CD4 counts, excluding patients with viral loads > or =1,000 copies/ml or any significant changes in therapy. Out of 4500 clinic patients, 419 patients (1588 viral loads) were included. 39% of viral loads were reported as detectable by RT-PCR vs. 5% reported as detectable by bDNA. The mean coefficient of variation was higher before vs. after assay change. We found an odds' ratio of 16.7 for having a viral load >75 copies/ml during the RT-PCR vs. bDNA periods. DISCUSSION:These data support previous reports, suggesting that bDNA may more reliably discriminate between viral suppression and low level viremia in stable patients on therapy. Low-level viremia, noted more with RT-PCR, may promote unneeded testing, while differences in viral load reliability may impact antiretroviral trial and quality assurance endpoints. Commonly used plasma separator tubes may differentially affect RT-PCR and bDNA results

Early development of non-hodgkin lymphoma following initiation of newer class antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected patients - implications for immune reconstitution

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the HAART era, the incidence of HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is decreasing. We describe cases of NHL among patients with multi-class antiretroviral resistance diagnosed rapidly after initiating newer-class antiretrovirals, and examine the immunologic and virologic factors associated with potential IRIS-mediated NHL.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>During December 2006 to January 2008, eligible HIV-infected patients from two affiliated clinics accessed Expanded Access Program antiretrovirals of raltegravir, etravirine, and/or maraviroc with optimized background. A NHL case was defined as a pathologically-confirmed tissue diagnosis in a patient without prior NHL developing symptoms after starting newer-class antiretrovirals. Mean change in CD4 and log₁₀VL in NHL cases compared to controls was analyzed at week 12, a time point at which values were collected among all cases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five cases occurred among 78 patients (mean incidence = 64.1/1000 patient-years). All cases received raltegravir and one received etravirine. Median symptom onset from newer-class antiretroviral initiation was 5 weeks. At baseline, the median CD4 and VL for NHL cases (n = 5) versus controls (n = 73) were 44 vs.117 cells/mm3 (p = 0.09) and 5.2 vs. 4.2 log₁₀(p = 0.06), respectively. The mean increase in CD4 at week 12 in NHL cases compared to controls was 13 (n = 5) vs. 74 (n = 50)(p = 0.284). Mean VL log₁₀reduction in NHL cases versus controls at week 12 was 2.79 (n = 5) vs. 1.94 (n = 50)(p = 0.045).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>An unexpectedly high rate of NHL was detected among treatment-experienced patients achieving a high level of virologic response with newer-class antiretrovirals. We observed trends toward lower baseline CD4 and higher baseline VL in NHL cases, with a significantly greater decline in VL among cases by 12 weeks. HIV-related NHL can occur in the setting of immune reconstitution. Potential immunologic, virologic, and newer-class antiretroviral-specific factors associated with rapid development of NHL warrants further investigation.</p

Mean censored viral loads and coefficients of variation.

*<p>Value not calculated because RT-PCR LLOQ = 50 copies/ml, so for RT-PCR for values>50 actual, rather than censored values used in calculating means. We do not report tests of statistical significance comparing censored mean pVLs, since the required left-sided censoring (i.e. undetectable = 49, 74 or 1 copy/ml) is unlikely to reflect the true distribution of pVL values below the LLOQ.</p

Clinical/demographic characteristics and viral load distributions.

*<p>Rounding to whole numbers accounts for totals not equal to 100%.</p

HIV-1 viral loads vs. time.

<p>This scatter plot shows each HIV viral load measurement (copies/ml on y-axis) vs. time (x-axis) with a vertical line dividing the RT-PCR (□ per each value) from bNDA (▵ per each value) time periods. In this figure, undetectable viral loads are censored to 49 copies/ml for the RT-PCR period and to 74 copies/ml for the bDNA period.</p

Care Facilitation Advances Movement Along the Hepatitis C Care Continuum for Persons With Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Hepatitis C, and Substance Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial (CTN-0064)

Abstract Background Direct-acting antivirals can cure hepatitis C virus (HCV). Persons with HCV/HIV and living with substance use are disadvantaged in benefiting from advances in HCV treatment. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, participants with HCV/HIV were randomized between February 2016 and January 2017 to either care facilitation or control. Twelve-month follow-up assessments were completed in January 2018. Care facilitation group participants received motivation and strengths-based case management addressing retrieval of HCV viral load results, engagement in HCV/HIV care, and medication adherence. Control group participants received referral to HCV evaluation and an offer of assistance in making care appointments. Primary outcome was number of steps achieved along a series of 8 clinical steps (eg, receiving HCV results, initiating treatment, sustained virologic response [SVR]) of the HCV/HIV care continuum over 12 months postrandomization. Results Three hundred eighty-one individuals were screened and 113 randomized. Median age was 51 years; 58.4% of participants were male and 72.6% were Black/African American. Median HIV-1 viral load was 27 209 copies/mL, with 69% having a detectable viral load. Mean number of steps completed was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group vs controls (2.44 vs 1.68 steps; χ 2 [1] = 7.36, P = .0067). Men in the intervention group completed a statistically significantly higher number of steps than controls. Eleven participants achieved SVR with no difference by treatment group. Conclusions The care facilitation intervention increased progress along the HCV/HIV care continuum, as observed for men and not women. Study findings also highlight continued challenges to achieve individual-patient SVR and population-level HCV elimination. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02641158

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health