Abstract
Background: Hepatitis B virus DNA quantification is essential for managing chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared the performance of artus HBV QS-RGQ (QIAGEN GmbH, Germany) and CAP/CTM v2.0 HBV assays (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA) in CHB patients. Methods: A comparative evaluation between two assays was performed with 508 clinical serum samples. Precision, linearity, and the limit of detection (LOD) of QS-RGQ assay was evaluated by using the WHO standard 97/750 and clinical samples. Results: Detection rates and viral loads as determined QS-RGQ assay were significantly lower than those from the CAP/CTM v2.0 assay (52.8% vs 60.6%; 3.55±1.77 IU/mL vs 4.18±1.89 IU/mL, P<0.0001). The kappa coefficient between qualitative results was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.85). Bland-Altman plot found a mean difference of (QS-RGQ - CAP/CTM v2.0)=-0.63 log10 IU/mL (95% limit of agreement, -1.48 to 0.22). Repeatability and total imprecision (% CV) of the QS-RGQ assay were 1.0% and 1.1% at 2,000 IU/mL, and 0.7% and 1.4% at 20,000 IU/mL, respectively. Linearity of this assay ranged from 31.6 to 1.0±107 IU/mL, and the LOD was 2.95 IU/mL. Conclusions: The artus HBV QS-RGQ assay showed good performance but significantly decreased detection rate and viral load compared with CAP/CTM v2.0 assays. This assay recommends using plasma; however, we used stored serum because of the retrospective study design. Usually HBV DNA quantification is performed in plasma or serum, but sample type and clinical relevance of quantitative values should be considered when determining the clinical application of this reagent.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 248-253 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Annals of laboratory medicine |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 Jan 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Clinical Biochemistry
- Biochemistry, medical
Cite this
}
Comparison of the QIAGEN artus HBV QS-RGQ assay with the roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HBV assay for quantifying viral DNA in sera of chronic hepatitis B patients. / Han, Mi Soon; Park, Yongjung; Nah, Hyunjin; Kim, Hyon Suk.
In: Annals of laboratory medicine, Vol. 37, No. 3, 01.01.2017, p. 248-253.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of the QIAGEN artus HBV QS-RGQ assay with the roche COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HBV assay for quantifying viral DNA in sera of chronic hepatitis B patients
AU - Han, Mi Soon
AU - Park, Yongjung
AU - Nah, Hyunjin
AU - Kim, Hyon Suk
PY - 2017/1/1
Y1 - 2017/1/1
N2 - Background: Hepatitis B virus DNA quantification is essential for managing chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared the performance of artus HBV QS-RGQ (QIAGEN GmbH, Germany) and CAP/CTM v2.0 HBV assays (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA) in CHB patients. Methods: A comparative evaluation between two assays was performed with 508 clinical serum samples. Precision, linearity, and the limit of detection (LOD) of QS-RGQ assay was evaluated by using the WHO standard 97/750 and clinical samples. Results: Detection rates and viral loads as determined QS-RGQ assay were significantly lower than those from the CAP/CTM v2.0 assay (52.8% vs 60.6%; 3.55±1.77 IU/mL vs 4.18±1.89 IU/mL, P<0.0001). The kappa coefficient between qualitative results was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.85). Bland-Altman plot found a mean difference of (QS-RGQ - CAP/CTM v2.0)=-0.63 log10 IU/mL (95% limit of agreement, -1.48 to 0.22). Repeatability and total imprecision (% CV) of the QS-RGQ assay were 1.0% and 1.1% at 2,000 IU/mL, and 0.7% and 1.4% at 20,000 IU/mL, respectively. Linearity of this assay ranged from 31.6 to 1.0±107 IU/mL, and the LOD was 2.95 IU/mL. Conclusions: The artus HBV QS-RGQ assay showed good performance but significantly decreased detection rate and viral load compared with CAP/CTM v2.0 assays. This assay recommends using plasma; however, we used stored serum because of the retrospective study design. Usually HBV DNA quantification is performed in plasma or serum, but sample type and clinical relevance of quantitative values should be considered when determining the clinical application of this reagent.
AB - Background: Hepatitis B virus DNA quantification is essential for managing chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared the performance of artus HBV QS-RGQ (QIAGEN GmbH, Germany) and CAP/CTM v2.0 HBV assays (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA) in CHB patients. Methods: A comparative evaluation between two assays was performed with 508 clinical serum samples. Precision, linearity, and the limit of detection (LOD) of QS-RGQ assay was evaluated by using the WHO standard 97/750 and clinical samples. Results: Detection rates and viral loads as determined QS-RGQ assay were significantly lower than those from the CAP/CTM v2.0 assay (52.8% vs 60.6%; 3.55±1.77 IU/mL vs 4.18±1.89 IU/mL, P<0.0001). The kappa coefficient between qualitative results was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.85). Bland-Altman plot found a mean difference of (QS-RGQ - CAP/CTM v2.0)=-0.63 log10 IU/mL (95% limit of agreement, -1.48 to 0.22). Repeatability and total imprecision (% CV) of the QS-RGQ assay were 1.0% and 1.1% at 2,000 IU/mL, and 0.7% and 1.4% at 20,000 IU/mL, respectively. Linearity of this assay ranged from 31.6 to 1.0±107 IU/mL, and the LOD was 2.95 IU/mL. Conclusions: The artus HBV QS-RGQ assay showed good performance but significantly decreased detection rate and viral load compared with CAP/CTM v2.0 assays. This assay recommends using plasma; however, we used stored serum because of the retrospective study design. Usually HBV DNA quantification is performed in plasma or serum, but sample type and clinical relevance of quantitative values should be considered when determining the clinical application of this reagent.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015591373&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015591373&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3343/alm.2017.37.3.248
DO - 10.3343/alm.2017.37.3.248
M3 - Article
C2 - 28224771
AN - SCOPUS:85015591373
VL - 37
SP - 248
EP - 253
JO - Annals of Laboratory Medicine
JF - Annals of Laboratory Medicine
SN - 2234-3806
IS - 3
ER -