Affiliation:
1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milan Italy
2. Virology Unit Foundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milan Italy
3. Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation CRC “A. M. and A. Migliavacca” Center for Liver Disease, University of Milan Milan Italy
Abstract
AbstractBackground and AimManagement of chronic hepatitis delta (CHD) requires reliable tests for HDV RNA quantification. The aim of the study was to compare two extraction methods for the quantification of HDV RNA in untreated and bulevirtide (BLV)‐treated CHD patients.MethodsFrozen sera from untreated and BLV‐treated CHD patients were tested in a single‐centre study for HDV RNA levels (Robogene 2.0, Roboscreen GmbH, Leipzig, Germany; LOD 6 IU/mL) with two extraction methods: manual (INSTANT Virus RNA/DNA kit; Roboscreen GmbH, Leipzig, Germany) versus automated (EZ1 DSP Virus Kit; Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). BLV‐treated patients were sampled at baseline and during therapy.ResultsTwo hundred sixty‐four sera collected from 157 CHD (139 untreated, 18 BLV‐treated) patients were analysed: age 51 (28–78), 59% males, 90% of European origin, 60% cirrhotics, ALT 85 (17–889) U/L, HBsAg 3.8 (1.7–4.6) Log IU/mL, 81% HBV DNA undetectable, 98% HDV genotype 1. Median HDV RNA was 4.53 (.70–8.10) versus 3.77 (.70–6.93) Log IU/mL by manual versus automated extraction (p < .0001). Manual extraction reported similar HDV RNA levels in 31 (20%) patients, higher in 119 (76%) [+.5 and +1 log10 in 60; > +1 log10 in 59] and lower in 7 (4%). Among 18 BLV‐treated patients, rates of HDV RNA < LOD significantly differed between the two assays at Weeks 16 and 24 (0% vs. 22%, p = .02; 11% vs. 44%, p = .03), but not at later timepoints. By contrast, virological response rates were similar.ConclusionsQuantification of HDV RNA by Robogene 2.0 is influenced by the extraction method, the manual extraction being 1 Log more sensitive.