D E Kireev1, V P Chulanov2,3, G A Shipulin4, A V Semenov5,6, E V Tivanova2, N M Kolyasnikova2, E B Zueva5, V V Pokrovskiy2, C Galli7. 1. Federal Budget Institute of Science Central Research Institute of Epidemiology Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor), Novogireyevskaya St., 3A, 111123, Moscow, Russia. dmitkireev@yandex.ru. 2. Federal Budget Institute of Science Central Research Institute of Epidemiology Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor), Novogireyevskaya St., 3A, 111123, Moscow, Russia. 3. I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation. 4. Center of Strategical Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks of the Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russia. 5. St. Petersburg Pasteur Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, St. Petersburg, Russia. 6. North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov, St. Petersburg, Russia. 7. Abbott Diagnostics, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV infection is a major health problem in Russia. We aimed to assess HIV prevalence in different population groups and to compare the characteristics of 4th generation immunoassays from Abbott, Bio-Rad, Vector-Best, Diagnostic Systems, and Medical Biological Unit. METHODS: The study included 4452 individuals from the general population (GP), 391 subjects at high risk of HIV infection (HR) and 699 with potentially interfering conditions. HIV positivity was confirmed by immunoblot and by HIV RNA, seroconversion and virus diversity panels were also used. HIV avidity was employed to assess recent infections. RESULTS: The prevalence in GP was 0.40%, higher in males (0.62%) and in people aged < 40 years (0.58%). Patients attending dermo-venereal centers and drug users had a high prevalence (34.1 and 58.8%). Recent infections were diagnosed in 20% of GP and in 4.2% of HR. Assay sensitivity was 100% except for one false negative (99,54%, MBU). Specificity was 99.58-99.89% overall, but as low as 93.26% on HR (Vector-Best). Small differences on early seroconversion were recorded. Only the Abbott assay detected all samples on the viral diversity panel. CONCLUSION: HIV infection rate in the high-risk groups suggests that awareness and screening campaigns should be enhanced. Fourth generation assays are adequate but performance differences must be considered.
BACKGROUND:HIV infection is a major health problem in Russia. We aimed to assess HIV prevalence in different population groups and to compare the characteristics of 4th generation immunoassays from Abbott, Bio-Rad, Vector-Best, Diagnostic Systems, and Medical Biological Unit. METHODS: The study included 4452 individuals from the general population (GP), 391 subjects at high risk of HIV infection (HR) and 699 with potentially interfering conditions. HIV positivity was confirmed by immunoblot and by HIV RNA, seroconversion and virus diversity panels were also used. HIV avidity was employed to assess recent infections. RESULTS: The prevalence in GP was 0.40%, higher in males (0.62%) and in people aged < 40 years (0.58%). Patients attending dermo-venereal centers and drug users had a high prevalence (34.1 and 58.8%). Recent infections were diagnosed in 20% of GP and in 4.2% of HR. Assay sensitivity was 100% except for one false negative (99,54%, MBU). Specificity was 99.58-99.89% overall, but as low as 93.26% on HR (Vector-Best). Small differences on early seroconversion were recorded. Only the Abbott assay detected all samples on the viral diversity panel. CONCLUSION:HIV infection rate in the high-risk groups suggests that awareness and screening campaigns should be enhanced. Fourth generation assays are adequate but performance differences must be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
4th generation HIV immunoassays; Assay performance; Epidemiology; HIV infection; High risk groups; Recent infections
Authors: I A Lapovok; A E Lopatukhin; D E Kireev; E V Kazennova; A V Lebedev; M R Bobkova; A N Kolomeets; G I Turbina; G A Shipulin; N N Ladnaya; V V Pokrovsky Journal: Ter Arkh Date: 2017 Impact factor: 0.467
Authors: D Nicolás; J Ambrosioni; E de Lazzari; A Suarez; C Manzardo; F Agüero; M M Mosquera; J Costa; C Ligero; M Á Marcos; S Sánchez-Palomino; E Fernández; M Plana; S Yerly; J M Gatell; J M Miró Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Reshma Kassanjee; Christopher D Pilcher; Michael P Busch; Gary Murphy; Shelley N Facente; Sheila M Keating; Elaine Mckinney; Kara Marson; Matthew A Price; Jeffrey N Martin; Susan J Little; Frederick M Hecht; Esper G Kallas; Alex Welte Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Eberhard W Fiebig; David J Wright; Bhupat D Rawal; Patricia E Garrett; Richard T Schumacher; Lorraine Peddada; Charles Heldebrant; Richard Smith; Andrew Conrad; Steven H Kleinman; Michael P Busch Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-09-05 Impact factor: 4.177