OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the performance of the GS fourth-generation antigen/antibody assay and compared Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) proposed alternative algorithm [repeatedly reactive fourth-generation immunoassay followed by an HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation immunoassay and, if needed, nucleic acid test (NAT)] with the current algorithm (repeatedly reactive third-generation immunoassay followed by HIV-1 western blot). DESIGN: A convenience sample of the following four specimen sets was acquired: 10 014 from insurance applicants, 493 known western blot-positive, 20 known western blot-indeterminate specimens, and 230 specimens from 26 HIV-1 seroconverters. METHODS: Specimens were tested with the GS third-generation and fourth-generation immunoassays, the Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation immunoassay, NAT, and western blot. We applied the two algorithms using these results. RESULTS: Among insurance specimens, 13 (0.13%) specimens were immunoassay repeatedly reactive: two were HIV-positive (repeatedly reactive by third-generation and fourth-generation immunoassays, and western blot and Multispot positive); two third-generation repeatedly reactive and nine fourth-generation repeatedly reactive specimens were false-positive. Third-generation and fourth-generation specificities were 99.98% [95% confidence interval (CI) 99.93-100%] and 99.91% (95% CI 99.84-99.96%), respectively.All HIV-1 western blot-positive specimens were repeatedly reactive by third-generation and fourth-generation immunoassays. By Multispot, 491 (99.6%) were HIV-1-positive and two (0.4%) were HIV-2-positive.Only eight (40%) western blot-indeterminate specimens were fourth-generation repeatedly reactive: six were Multispot and NAT-negative and two were Multispot HIV-1-positive but NAT-negative.The alternative algorithm correctly classified as positive 102 seroconverter specimens with the third-generation immunoassay and 130 with the fourth-generation immunoassay compared with 56 using the western blot with either immunoassay. CONCLUSION: The alternative testing algorithm improved early infection sensitivity and identified HIV-2 infections. Two potential false-positive algorithm results occurred with western blot-indeterminate specimens.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the performance of the GS fourth-generation antigen/antibody assay and compared Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) proposed alternative algorithm [repeatedly reactive fourth-generation immunoassay followed by an HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation immunoassay and, if needed, nucleic acid test (NAT)] with the current algorithm (repeatedly reactive third-generation immunoassay followed by HIV-1 western blot). DESIGN: A convenience sample of the following four specimen sets was acquired: 10 014 from insurance applicants, 493 known western blot-positive, 20 known western blot-indeterminate specimens, and 230 specimens from 26 HIV-1 seroconverters. METHODS: Specimens were tested with the GS third-generation and fourth-generation immunoassays, the Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2 differentiation immunoassay, NAT, and western blot. We applied the two algorithms using these results. RESULTS: Among insurance specimens, 13 (0.13%) specimens were immunoassay repeatedly reactive: two were HIV-positive (repeatedly reactive by third-generation and fourth-generation immunoassays, and western blot and Multispot positive); two third-generation repeatedly reactive and nine fourth-generation repeatedly reactive specimens were false-positive. Third-generation and fourth-generation specificities were 99.98% [95% confidence interval (CI) 99.93-100%] and 99.91% (95% CI 99.84-99.96%), respectively.All HIV-1 western blot-positive specimens were repeatedly reactive by third-generation and fourth-generation immunoassays. By Multispot, 491 (99.6%) were HIV-1-positive and two (0.4%) were HIV-2-positive.Only eight (40%) western blot-indeterminate specimens were fourth-generation repeatedly reactive: six were Multispot and NAT-negative and two were Multispot HIV-1-positive but NAT-negative.The alternative algorithm correctly classified as positive 102 seroconverter specimens with the third-generation immunoassay and 130 with the fourth-generation immunoassay compared with 56 using the western blot with either immunoassay. CONCLUSION: The alternative testing algorithm improved early infection sensitivity and identified HIV-2 infections. Two potential false-positive algorithm results occurred with western blot-indeterminate specimens.
Authors: Michel L Ntemgwa; Thomas d'Aquin Toni; Bluma G Brenner; Ricardo J Camacho; Mark A Wainberg Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Silvina Masciotra; J Steven McDougal; Jane Feldman; Patrick Sprinkle; Laura Wesolowski; S Michele Owen Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Mark W Pandori; John Hackett; Brian Louie; Ana Vallari; Teri Dowling; Sally Liska; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jeffrey A Kelly; Stephen F Morin; Robert H Remien; Wayne T Steward; Jenny A Higgins; David W Seal; Robert Dubrow; J H Atkinson; Peter R Kerndt; Steven D Pinkerton; Kenneth Mayer; Kathleen J Sikkema Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2009-06-06
Authors: Eric M Ramos; Socorro Harb; Joan Dragavon; Paul Swenson; Joanne D Stekler; Robert W Coombs Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Catherine A Grodensky; Carol E Golin; Allison P Pack; Audrey Pettifor; Michele Demers; Cecelia Massa; Gift Kamanga; Kevin McKenna; Amy Corneli Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2018-02-07
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: Muazzam Nasrullah; Laura G Wesolowski; Steven F Ethridge; Kevin Cranston; Michael Pentella; Robert A Myers; James T Rudrik; Angela B Hutchinson; Spencer B Bennett; Barbara G Werner Journal: J Infect Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 6.072
Authors: Adedotun A Adetunji; Moses O Adewumi; Obaro S Michael; Samuel A Fayemiwo; Adesola Ogunniyi; Babafemi O Taiwo Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Jessica M Fogel; Paul Richardson; Shauna Wolf; William Clarke; Mark A Marzinke; Agnès Fiamma; Deborah Donnell; Michal Kulich; Jessie K K Mbwambo; Linda Richter; Glenda Gray; Michael Sweat; Thomas J Coates; Susan H Eshleman Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Laura G Wesolowski; Kelly Wroblewski; Spencer B Bennett; Monica M Parker; Celia Hagan; Steven F Ethridge; Jeselyn Rhodes; Timothy J Sullivan; Imelda Ignacio-Hernando; Barbara G Werner; S Michele Owen Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: JoAnn D Kuruc; Anna B Cope; Lynne A Sampson; Cynthia L Gay; Rhonda M Ashby; Evelyn M Foust; Myra Brinson; John E Barnhart; David Margolis; William C Miller; Peter A Leone; Joseph J Eron Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731