BACKGROUND: Data on the performance and utility of rapid serological tests in infants to determine HIV exposure are unclear and in some instances contradictory. This study sought to understand the performance of rapid serological tests in high HIV burden, high Option B+ coverage settings to be used as an HIV exposure screening tool. METHODS: A total of 3600 infants up to 24 months of age at 4 regional hospitals in Uganda were systematically enrolled and tested simultaneously using both HIV rapid serological and nucleic acid-based tests. RESULTS: Only 58 of the 94 HIV-positive infants who received both rapid serological and nucleic acid-based tests were positive with the rapid serological test (sensitivity: 61.7%; 95% confidence interval: 51.1 to 71.5). Using rapid serological tests to screen infants for exposure to HIV and follow-up nucleic acid-based testing would have missed 38.3% (36 of 94) of HIV-positive infants. Finally, several HIV-positive infants who were negative by rapid serological test presented to well-child entry points and were considered healthy. All 3 HIV-positive infants presenting to outreach and immunization were negative by rapid serological testing and 73% (8 of 11) presenting to outpatient. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the use of rapid serological tests may have inadequate performance as an indicator of exposure and potential HIV infection among infants presenting at both well-child (immunization and community outreach) and sick-infant (nutrition and inpatient) entry points. To improve the identification of HIV-positive infants, nucleic acid-based testing should instead be considered in infants aged younger than 18 months.
BACKGROUND: Data on the performance and utility of rapid serological tests in infants to determine HIV exposure are unclear and in some instances contradictory. This study sought to understand the performance of rapid serological tests in high HIV burden, high Option B+ coverage settings to be used as an HIV exposure screening tool. METHODS: A total of 3600 infants up to 24 months of age at 4 regional hospitals in Uganda were systematically enrolled and tested simultaneously using both HIV rapid serological and nucleic acid-based tests. RESULTS: Only 58 of the 94 HIV-positive infants who received both rapid serological and nucleic acid-based tests were positive with the rapid serological test (sensitivity: 61.7%; 95% confidence interval: 51.1 to 71.5). Using rapid serological tests to screen infants for exposure to HIV and follow-up nucleic acid-based testing would have missed 38.3% (36 of 94) of HIV-positive infants. Finally, several HIV-positive infants who were negative by rapid serological test presented to well-child entry points and were considered healthy. All 3 HIV-positive infants presenting to outreach and immunization were negative by rapid serological testing and 73% (8 of 11) presenting to outpatient. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the use of rapid serological tests may have inadequate performance as an indicator of exposure and potential HIV infection among infants presenting at both well-child (immunization and community outreach) and sick-infant (nutrition and inpatient) entry points. To improve the identification of HIV-positive infants, nucleic acid-based testing should instead be considered in infants aged younger than 18 months.
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: Jessica M Fogel; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Barbara Debevec; Tamara Walsky; Katherine Schlusser; Oliver Laeyendecker; Ethan A Wilson; Marybeth McCauley; Theresa Gamble; Gerald Tegha; Dean Soko; Johnstone Kumwenda; Mina C Hosseinipour; Ying Q Chen; Myron S Cohen; Susan H Eshleman Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Mark M Kabue; W Chris Buck; Sebastian R Wanless; Carrie M Cox; Eric D McCollum; A Chantal Caviness; Saeed Ahmed; Maria H Kim; Lineo Thahane; Andrew Devlin; Duncan Kochelani; Peter N Kazembe; Nancy R Calles; Michael B Mizwa; Gordon E Schutze; Mark W Kline Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Anisa Ghadrshenas; Yanis Ben Amor; Joy Chang; Helen Dale; Gayle Sherman; Lara Vojnov; Paul Young; Ram Yogev Journal: AIDS Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Jordan A Francke; Martina Penazzato; Taige Hou; Elaine J Abrams; Rachel L MacLean; Landon Myer; Rochelle P Walensky; Valériane Leroy; Milton C Weinstein; Robert A Parker; Kenneth A Freedberg; Andrea Ciaranello Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: David E Bourne; MaryLou Thompson; Linnea L Brody; Mark Cotton; Beverly Draper; Ria Laubscher; M Fareed Abdullah; Jonny E Myers Journal: AIDS Date: 2009-01-02 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Avy Violari; Mark F Cotton; Diana M Gibb; Abdel G Babiker; Jan Steyn; Shabir A Madhi; Patrick Jean-Philippe; James A McIntyre Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark S de Souza; Suteeraporn Pinyakorn; Siriwat Akapirat; Supanit Pattanachaiwit; James L K Fletcher; Nitiya Chomchey; Eugene D Kroon; Sasiwimol Ubolyam; Nelson L Michael; Merlin L Robb; Praphan Phanuphak; Jerome H Kim; Nittaya Phanuphak; Jintanat Ananworanich Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-06-17 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Collins Otieno Odhiambo; George Githuka; Nancy Bowen; Leonard Kingwara; Jared Onsase; Bernard Ochuka; Michael Waweru; Rose Masaba; Lucy Matu; Eliud Mwangi; Jennifer Cohn Journal: J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care Date: 2020 Jan-Dec