4.7 Article

Evaluation of the Abbott Investigational Use Only RealTime Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Assay and Comparison to the Roche TaqMan HCV Analyte-Specific Reagent Assay

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 9, 页码 2872-2878

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02329-08

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accurate and sensitive measurement of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA is essential for the clinical management and treatment of infected patients and as a research tool for studying the biology of HCV infection. We evaluated the linearity, reproducibility, precision, limit of detection, and concordance of viral genotype quantitation of the Abbott investigational use only RealTime HCV ( RealTime) assay using the Abbott m2000 platform and compared the results to those of the Roche TaqMan Analyte-Specific Reagent ( TaqMan) and Bayer Versant HCV bDNA 3.0 assay. Comparison of 216 samples analyzed by RealTime and TaqMan assays produced the following Deming regression equation: RealTime = 0.940 (TaqMan) + 0.175 log(10) HCV RNA IU/ml. The average difference between the assays was 0.143 log(10) RNA IU/ml and was consistent across RealTime's dynamic range of nearly 7 log(10) HCV RNA IU/ml. There was no significant difference between genotypes among these samples. The limit of detection using eight replicates of the World Health Organization HCV standard was determined to be 7.74 HCV RNA IU/ml by probit analysis. Replicate measurements of commercial genotype panels were significantly higher than TaqMan measurements for most samples and showed that the RealTime assay is able to detect all genotypes with no bias. Additionally, we showed that the amplicon generated by the widely used Roche COBAS Amplicor Hepatitis C Virus Test, version 2.0, can act as a template in the RealTime assay, but potential cross-contamination could be mitigated by treatment with uracil-N-glycosylase. In conclusion, the RealTime assay accurately measured HCV viral loads over a broad dynamic range, with no significant genotype bias.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据