OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a rapid HIV antibody test used with whole blood and oral fluid in settings where the test is likely to be used. DESIGN: In four separate studies, we compared the accuracy of the rapid test performed on whole blood and oral fluid specimens with the results of conventional HIV tests. METHODS: Oral fluid and whole blood from persons of unknown HIV status recruited from clinics, labor and delivery units, and outreach venues were tested with the OraQuick Advance rapid HIV-1/2 antibody test. Sensitivity and specificity were compared with results of the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and Western blot algorithm used by the study sites. RESULTS: OraQuick sensitivity was 99.7% with whole blood and 99.1% with oral fluid from 327 persons who were HIV antibody positive by the conventional algorithm. OraQuick specificity was 99.9% with whole blood and 99.6% with oral fluid from 12 010 HIV-negative persons; EIA specificity was 99.7%. A cluster of 16 false-positive oral fluid tests occurred in one study, in which specificity was lower (99.0%) than in the other three studies (99.6-99.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In diverse settings in four studies, the OraQuick test showed high sensitivity and specificity for HIV antibody in whole blood and oral fluid specimens. Slightly more false-positive and false-negative results occurred with oral fluid than with whole blood, but performance with both specimen types was similar to, or better than, that of conventional EIAs.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a rapid HIV antibody test used with whole blood and oral fluid in settings where the test is likely to be used. DESIGN: In four separate studies, we compared the accuracy of the rapid test performed on whole blood and oral fluid specimens with the results of conventional HIV tests. METHODS: Oral fluid and whole blood from persons of unknown HIV status recruited from clinics, labor and delivery units, and outreach venues were tested with the OraQuick Advance rapid HIV-1/2 antibody test. Sensitivity and specificity were compared with results of the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and Western blot algorithm used by the study sites. RESULTS: OraQuick sensitivity was 99.7% with whole blood and 99.1% with oral fluid from 327 persons who were HIV antibody positive by the conventional algorithm. OraQuick specificity was 99.9% with whole blood and 99.6% with oral fluid from 12 010 HIV-negative persons; EIA specificity was 99.7%. A cluster of 16 false-positive oral fluid tests occurred in one study, in which specificity was lower (99.0%) than in the other three studies (99.6-99.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In diverse settings in four studies, the OraQuick test showed high sensitivity and specificity for HIV antibody in whole blood and oral fluid specimens. Slightly more false-positive and false-negative results occurred with oral fluid than with whole blood, but performance with both specimen types was similar to, or better than, that of conventional EIAs.
Authors: Laura M Bogart; Devery Howerton; James Lange; Kirsten Becker; Claude Messan Setodji; Steven M Asch Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Janice M Yoshizawa; Christopher A Schafer; Jason J Schafer; James J Farrell; Bruce J Paster; David T W Wong Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Laura G Wesolowski; Steven F Ethridge; Eugene G Martin; Evan M Cadoff; Duncan A MacKellar Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Kevin P Delaney; Jacqueline Rurangirwa; Shelley Facente; Teri Dowling; Mike Janson; Thomas Knoble; Annie Vu; Yunyin W Hu; Peter R Kerndt; Jan King; Susan Scheer Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; Christian Arbelaez; William M Reichmann; Ron M Walls; Jeffrey N Katz; Brian L Block; Matthew Dooley; Adam Hetland; Simeon Kimmel; Jessica D Solomon; Elena Losina Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-08-05 Impact factor: 25.391