BACKGROUND: Although rapid HIV tests increase the number of persons who are aware of their HIV status, they may fail to detect early HIV infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the sensitivity for early HIV infection of several rapid tests and third- and fourth-generation assays compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). STUDY DESIGN: Sensitivity for early HIV infection was evaluated using 62 NAAT-positive/WB-negative or indeterminate specimens from the CDC Acute HIV Infection study. Specimens underwent third-generation testing with Genetic Systems 1/2+O(®) and rapid testing with Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2. A subset was also tested with four FDA-approved rapid tests and Determine HIV-1 Antigen/Antibody Rapid Test(®) and Architect HIV Antigen/Antibody Combo(®), both fourth-generation tests. RESULTS: Of 99,111 specimens screened from April 2006 to March 2008, 62 met the definition for early HIV infection (60 NAAT-positive/seronegative and 2 NAAT-positive/Western blot indeterminate). Third-generation testing correctly detected antibody in 34 specimens (55%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 42-67); Multispot detected antibody in 16 (26%; 95% CI: 16-38). Of the 62 specimens, 33 (53%) had sufficient quantity for further testing. Rapid test sensitivities for early HIV infection ranged from 22-33% compared with 55-57% for the third-generation assay and 76-88% for the fourth-generation tests. CONCLUSIONS: Many rapid HIV tests failed to detect half of the early HIV infection cases in whom antibody was present. Programs that screen high-incidence populations with rapid tests should consider supplemental testing with NAAT or other antigen-based tests. These data support the need for more sensitive antigen-based point-of-care screening tests for early HIV infection. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Although rapid HIV tests increase the number of persons who are aware of their HIV status, they may fail to detect early HIV infection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the sensitivity for early HIV infection of several rapid tests and third- and fourth-generation assays compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). STUDY DESIGN: Sensitivity for early HIV infection was evaluated using 62 NAAT-positive/WB-negative or indeterminate specimens from the CDC Acute HIV Infection study. Specimens underwent third-generation testing with Genetic Systems 1/2+O(®) and rapid testing with Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2. A subset was also tested with four FDA-approved rapid tests and Determine HIV-1 Antigen/Antibody Rapid Test(®) and Architect HIV Antigen/Antibody Combo(®), both fourth-generation tests. RESULTS: Of 99,111 specimens screened from April 2006 to March 2008, 62 met the definition for early HIV infection (60 NAAT-positive/seronegative and 2 NAAT-positive/Western blot indeterminate). Third-generation testing correctly detected antibody in 34 specimens (55%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 42-67); Multispot detected antibody in 16 (26%; 95% CI: 16-38). Of the 62 specimens, 33 (53%) had sufficient quantity for further testing. Rapid test sensitivities for early HIV infection ranged from 22-33% compared with 55-57% for the third-generation assay and 76-88% for the fourth-generation tests. CONCLUSIONS: Many rapid HIV tests failed to detect half of the early HIV infection cases in whom antibody was present. Programs that screen high-incidence populations with rapid tests should consider supplemental testing with NAAT or other antigen-based tests. These data support the need for more sensitive antigen-based point-of-care screening tests for early HIV infection. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Kevin P Delaney; Bernard M Branson; Apurva Uniyal; Susan Phillips; Debra Candal; S Michele Owen; Peter R Kerndt Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Maria J Wawer; Ronald H Gray; Nelson K Sewankambo; David Serwadda; Xianbin Li; Oliver Laeyendecker; Noah Kiwanuka; Godfrey Kigozi; Mohammed Kiddugavu; Thomas Lutalo; Fred Nalugoda; Fred Wabwire-Mangen; Mary P Meehan; Thomas C Quinn Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2005-03-30 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Christopher D Pilcher; Susan A Fiscus; Trang Q Nguyen; Evelyn Foust; Leslie Wolf; Del Williams; Rhonda Ashby; Judy Owen O'Dowd; J Todd McPherson; Brandt Stalzer; Lisa Hightow; William C Miller; Joseph J Eron; Myron S Cohen; Peter A Leone Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joanne D Stekler; Paul D Swenson; Robert W Coombs; Joan Dragavon; Katherine K Thomas; Catherine A Brennan; Sushil G Devare; Robert W Wood; Matthew R Golden Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2009-08-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Brian Louie; Ernest Wong; Jeffrey D Klausner; Sally Liska; Frederick Hecht; Terri Dowling; Martha Obeso; Susan S Phillips; Mark W Pandori Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: S M Owen; C Yang; T Spira; C Y Ou; C P Pau; B S Parekh; D Candal; D Kuehl; M S Kennedy; D Rudolph; W Luo; N Delatorre; S Masciotra; M L Kalish; F Cowart; T Barnett; R Lal; J S McDougal Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Yen T Duong; Yvonne Mavengere; Hetal Patel; Carole Moore; Julius Manjengwa; Dumile Sibandze; Christopher Rasberry; Charmaine Mlambo; Zhi Li; Lynda Emel; Naomi Bock; Jan Moore; Rejoice Nkambule; Jessica Justman; Jason Reed; George Bicego; Dennis L Ellenberger; John N Nkengasong; Bharat S Parekh Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Laura G Wesolowski; Kevin P Delaney; William A Meyer; Amy J Blatt; Berry Bennett; Pollyanna Chavez; Timothy C Granade; Michele Owen Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Joanne D Stekler; George Ure; Joshua D O'Neal; Aric Lane; Fred Swanson; Janine Maenza; Claire Stevens; Robert W Coombs; Joan Dragavon; Paul D Swenson; Matthew R Golden Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2016-01-02 Impact factor: 3.168