{"title":"Evaluation of two commercial diagnostic methods for HHV-8 viral load assessment","authors":"Honorine Fenaux , Lina Mouna , Corinne Vieux-Combe , Isabelle Thouard , Philippe Colliot , Anne-Marie Roque-Afonso","doi":"10.1016/j.ijregi.2024.100374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8) can cause Kaposi's sarcoma or B lymphoproliferative disorders such as multicentric Castleman disease. Patient follow-up is based on assessing the HHV-8 viral load, which is usually achieved using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The HHV-8 Premix r-gene kit (BioMérieux) was used by some laboratories in the past, but BioMérieux ceased the production and distribution of this kit in 2021-2022. Other kits need to be tested so that they can be used for diagnostic purposes. Here we evaluated two commercial kits: HHV8 ELITe MGB Kit (ELITech) and Quanty HHV-8 (Clonit) and compared them with the HHV-8 Premix r-gene kit.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We used whole blood samples that had previously been tested with the HHV-8 Premix r-gene kit for diagnostic purposes. Overall, 46 samples (37 HHV-8-positive and 9 HHV-8-negative) were tested with the ELITe MGB Kit and 37 (29 HHV-8-positive and 8 HHV-8-negative) with the Quanty HHV-8 kit. The different methods were compared using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok tests with Analyse-it software.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Qualitative results were concordant except for one HHV-8 low-positive sample that was found to be negative by the ELITe MGB Kit. The quantitative results were also concordant; both kits showed mean differences of 0.58 log<sub>10</sub> copies/ml and 0.73 log<sub>10</sub> copies/ml, respectively, compared to the Premix r-gene kit.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both the methods tested produced acceptable results and could be used for diagnostic purposes. It should be remembered that there is no international standard for HHV-8 quantification and that patients should always be followed using the same method.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73335,"journal":{"name":"IJID regions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772707624000456/pdfft?md5=6201631651d13e973061c4c7101e9dc3&pid=1-s2.0-S2772707624000456-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IJID regions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772707624000456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
Human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8) can cause Kaposi's sarcoma or B lymphoproliferative disorders such as multicentric Castleman disease. Patient follow-up is based on assessing the HHV-8 viral load, which is usually achieved using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The HHV-8 Premix r-gene kit (BioMérieux) was used by some laboratories in the past, but BioMérieux ceased the production and distribution of this kit in 2021-2022. Other kits need to be tested so that they can be used for diagnostic purposes. Here we evaluated two commercial kits: HHV8 ELITe MGB Kit (ELITech) and Quanty HHV-8 (Clonit) and compared them with the HHV-8 Premix r-gene kit.
Methods
We used whole blood samples that had previously been tested with the HHV-8 Premix r-gene kit for diagnostic purposes. Overall, 46 samples (37 HHV-8-positive and 9 HHV-8-negative) were tested with the ELITe MGB Kit and 37 (29 HHV-8-positive and 8 HHV-8-negative) with the Quanty HHV-8 kit. The different methods were compared using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok tests with Analyse-it software.
Results
Qualitative results were concordant except for one HHV-8 low-positive sample that was found to be negative by the ELITe MGB Kit. The quantitative results were also concordant; both kits showed mean differences of 0.58 log10 copies/ml and 0.73 log10 copies/ml, respectively, compared to the Premix r-gene kit.
Conclusions
Both the methods tested produced acceptable results and could be used for diagnostic purposes. It should be remembered that there is no international standard for HHV-8 quantification and that patients should always be followed using the same method.