Eugene G Martin1, Gratian Salaru2, Debbie Mohammed3, Robert W Coombs4, Sindy M Paul5, Evan M Cadoff2. 1. UMDNJ - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ, United States(1). Electronic address: martineu@rwjms.rutgers.edu. 2. UMDNJ - Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Somerset, NJ, United States(1). 3. UMDNJ - New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, United States. 4. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 5. New Jersey State Department of Health, Trenton, NJ, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A screening strategy combining rapid HIV-1/2 (HIV) antibody testing with pooled HIV-1 RNA testing increases identification of HIV infections, but may have other limitations that restrict its usefulness to all but the highest incidence populations. OBJECTIVE: By combining rapid antibody detection and pooled nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) testing, we sought to improve detection of early HIV-1 infections in an urban Newark, NJ hospital setting. STUDY DESIGN: Pooled NAAT HIV-1 RNA testing was offered to emergency department patients and outpatients being screened for HIV antibodies by fingerstick-rapid HIV testing. For those negative by rapid HIV and agreeing to NAAT testing, pooled plasma samples were prepared and sent to the University of Washington where real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) amplification was performed. RESULTS: Of 13,226 individuals screened, 6381 had rapid antibody testing alone, and 6845 agreed to add NAAT HIV screening. Rapid testing identified 115 antibody positive individuals. Pooled NAAT increased HIV-1 case detection by 7.0% identifying 8 additional cases. Overall, acute HIV infection yield was 0.12%. While males represent only 48.1% of those tested by NAAT, all samples that screened positive for HIV-1 RNA were obtained from men. CONCLUSION: HIV-1 RNA testing of pooled, HIV antibody-negative specimens permits identification of recent infections. In Newark, pooled NAAT increased HIV-1 case detection and provided an opportunity to focus on treatment and prevention messages for those most at risk of transmitting infection. Although constrained by client willingness to participate in testing associated with a need to return to receive further results, use of pooled NAAT improved early infection sensitivity.
BACKGROUND: A screening strategy combining rapid HIV-1/2 (HIV) antibody testing with pooled HIV-1 RNA testing increases identification of HIV infections, but may have other limitations that restrict its usefulness to all but the highest incidence populations. OBJECTIVE: By combining rapid antibody detection and pooled nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) testing, we sought to improve detection of early HIV-1 infections in an urban Newark, NJ hospital setting. STUDY DESIGN: Pooled NAATHIV-1 RNA testing was offered to emergency department patients and outpatients being screened for HIV antibodies by fingerstick-rapid HIV testing. For those negative by rapid HIV and agreeing to NAAT testing, pooled plasma samples were prepared and sent to the University of Washington where real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) amplification was performed. RESULTS: Of 13,226 individuals screened, 6381 had rapid antibody testing alone, and 6845 agreed to add NAATHIV screening. Rapid testing identified 115 antibody positive individuals. Pooled NAAT increased HIV-1 case detection by 7.0% identifying 8 additional cases. Overall, acute HIV infection yield was 0.12%. While males represent only 48.1% of those tested by NAAT, all samples that screened positive for HIV-1 RNA were obtained from men. CONCLUSION:HIV-1 RNA testing of pooled, HIV antibody-negative specimens permits identification of recent infections. In Newark, pooled NAAT increased HIV-1 case detection and provided an opportunity to focus on treatment and prevention messages for those most at risk of transmitting infection. Although constrained by client willingness to participate in testing associated with a need to return to receive further results, use of pooled NAAT improved early infection sensitivity.
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: 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: Curt G Beckwith; Alexandra H Cornwall; Robert Dubrow; Kimberle Chapin; Robert Ducharme; Irma Rodriguez; Lavinia Velasquez; Michael H Merson; Kathleen J Sikkema; Kenneth Mayer Journal: Med Health R I Date: 2009-07
Authors: Angela B Hutchinson; Pragna Patel; Stephanie L Sansom; Paul G Farnham; Timothy J Sullivan; Berry Bennett; Peter R Kerndt; Robert K Bolan; James D Heffelfinger; Vimalanand S Prabhu; Bernard M Branson Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Peijie Hou; Joshua M Tebbs; Dewei Wang; Christopher S McMahan; Christopher R Bilder Journal: Biostatistics Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 5.899
Authors: Rosy C Franklin; Ryan A Behmer Hansen; Jean M Pierce; Diomedes J Tsitouras; Catherine A Mazzola Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mark M Manak; Leigh Anne Eller; Jennifer Malia; Linda L Jagodzinski; Rapee Trichavaroj; Joseph Oundo; Cornelia Lueer; Fatim Cham; Mark de Souza; Nelson L Michael; Merlin L Robb; Sheila A Peel Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 5.948