Ann Lab Med 2017; 37(3): 248-253  
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
Mi-Soon Han, M.D.1,3, Yongjung Park, M.D.2, Hyunjin Nah, M.D.3, and Hyon-Suk Kim, M.D.3
Medical Clinic Laboratory Department of U2Bio Co. Ltd.1, Seoul; Department of Laboratory Medicine2, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang; Department of Laboratory Medicine3, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to: Hyon-Suk Kim
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2228-2443
Fax: +82-2-364-1583
E-mail: kimhs54@yuhs.ac
Received: June 16, 2016; Revised: September 27, 2016; Accepted: January 9, 2017; Published online: May 1, 2017.
© The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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.
Keywords: Hepatitis B virus, HBV DNA quantification, artus HBV QS-RGQ assay, CAP/CTM v2.0 assay, Performance


This Article

e-submission

Archives

Indexed/Covered by