Viral load testing in a resource-limited setting: quality control is critical

BackgroundWorld Health Organization guidelines now recommend routine use of viral load testing, where available, for patients receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART). However, its use has not been routinely implemented in many resource-limited settings due to cost, availability and accessibility. Viral load testing is complex, making its application in resource-limited settings challenging. We describe the issues encountered by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) when using routine viral load testing in a large HIV programme in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsBetween October 2005 and August 2006, more than 1200 patients on ART had viral load tests at baseline and at three-month intervals performed by a local reference laboratory that was quality assured by an experienced international institution. Concerns with reliability of results halted testing. The quality control measures instituted with a second laboratory and outcomes of these were documented.ResultsIn 2005 and 2006, only 178 of 334 (53%) previously ART-naïve patients tested after six to 12 months of treatment had viral loads of less than 1000 copies/mL. Similar MSF programmes elsewhere demonstrated virological suppression rates of more than 85%, and duplicate testing showed unacceptable discordance. Laboratory problems encountered included: disregarded quality control; time delays; requirement for retesting; and duplicate sample variations. Potentially harmful clinical outcomes of inaccurate viral load results include: unnecessary ART regimen changes; unnecessary enhanced adherence counselling after "false failures"; and undetected virological failure.ConclusionsViral load testing performed without rigorous quality control carries the risk of erroneous and potentially damaging results. Viral load testing should be utilized only if robust quality assurance has been implemented. Our experience in this and other settings led to the development of a guide for assessing the suitability of a laboratory for viral load testing that can be used to help achieve reliable results.

[1]  N. Ford,et al.  HIV viral load monitoring in resource-limited regions: optional or necessary? , 2007, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[2]  R. Dewar,et al.  Comparative Analysis of HIV-1 Viral Load Assays on Subtype Quantification: Bayer Versant HIV-1 RNA 3.0 Versus Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Version 1.5 , 2002 .

[3]  A. Wensing,et al.  Virological follow-up of adult patients in antiretroviral treatment programmes in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. , 2010, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[4]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[5]  K. Lokuge,et al.  Outcomes of a Remote, Decentralized Health Center-Based HIV/AIDS Antiretroviral Program in Zambia, 2003 to 2007 , 2009, Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care.

[6]  M. Egger,et al.  Switching to second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings: comparison of programmes with and without viral load monitoring , 2009, AIDS.

[7]  A. Breckenridge,et al.  Routine versus clinically driven laboratory monitoring of HIV antiretroviral therapy in Africa (DART): a randomised non-inferiority trial. , 2010, Lancet.

[8]  Imelda Bates,et al.  Are laboratory services coming of age in sub-Saharan Africa? , 2006, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[9]  A. Phillips,et al.  DART points the way for HIV treatment programmes , 2010, The Lancet.

[10]  J. V. van Oosterhout,et al.  Diagnosis of antiretroviral therapy failure in Malawi: poor performance of clinical and immunological WHO criteria , 2009, Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH.

[11]  L. Merrick,et al.  Comprehensive comparison of the VERSANT HIV-1 RNA 3.0 (bDNA) and COBAS AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR 1.5 assays on 1,000 clinical specimens. , 2005, Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology.

[12]  N. Ford,et al.  Scaling up antiretroviral treatment in resource-poor settings , 2006, The Lancet.

[13]  C. Rouzioux,et al.  Positive outcomes of HAART at 24 months in HIV-infected patients in Cambodia , 2007, AIDS.

[14]  Cathy A Petti,et al.  Laboratory medicine in Africa: a barrier to effective health care. , 2006, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[15]  J. Hogan,et al.  Misclassification of first-line antiretroviral treatment failure based on immunological monitoring of HIV infection in resource-limited settings. , 2009, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[16]  H. Batz,et al.  Scaling up antiretroviral treatment in resource-poor settings , 2006, The Lancet.

[17]  L. Markson,et al.  THE FORUM FOR COLLABORATIVE HIV RESEARCH , 2000 .

[18]  R. Dewar,et al.  Comparative Analysis of HIV‐1 Viral Load Assays on Subtype Quantification: Bayer Versant HIV‐1 RNA 3.0 Versus Roche Amplicor HIV‐1 Monitor Version 1.5 , 2002, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[19]  H. Doerr,et al.  Comparative evaluation of the Cobas Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Ultrasensitive Test, the new Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Ultrasensitive Test and the Versant HIV RNA 3.0 assays for quantitation of HIV-1 RNA in plasma samples. , 2005, Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology.

[20]  Cheryl Jennings,et al.  HIV-1 Viral Load Assays for Resource-Limited Settings , 2006, PLoS medicine.