Jeffrey Petersen1, Maria Monteiro1, Sharvari Dalal1, Darshana Jhala1. 1. and are Staff Pathologists; is a Medical Technologist; and is the Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; all at the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center. is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; Sharvari Dalal is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; and Darshana Jhala is a Professor; all at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines advocating routine HIV screening for all patients. However, false-positive results are a potential patient care threat for low-risk populations even with accurate screening assays. A reduction in HIV false-positive screening results can potentially be seen by switching from the third-generation to a more sensitive and specific fourth-generation screening assay. METHODS: We studied the impact on the false-positive screening rate of a change to a fourth-generation assay at a regional US Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center. HIV screening tests performed by the laboratory from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017, prior to implementation of the new assay were compared with fourth-generation HIV screening tests performed from March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018. RESULTS: Of 7,516 third-generation HIV screening tests reviewed, 52 were reactive on the screening assay; 24 were true positives, 28 were false positives. The following year 7,802 fourth-generation HIV screening tests were performed and 23 were reactive on the screening assay; 16 were true positives and 7 were false positives. The positive predictive value for the third-generation test was 46% and 70% for the fourth-generation test. CONCLUSIONS: There were fewer false-positive results with testing with the more specific fourth- vs third-generation assay (0.09% vs 0.37%, respectively), which was statistically significant (P = .002). This reduction in false-positive screening would reduce the laboratory workload and would save an estimated $3,875 yearly and reduce the adverse effects of false-positive screening results for patients.
BACKGROUND: In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidelines advocating routine HIV screening for all patients. However, false-positive results are a potential patient care threat for low-risk populations even with accurate screening assays. A reduction in HIV false-positive screening results can potentially be seen by switching from the third-generation to a more sensitive and specific fourth-generation screening assay. METHODS: We studied the impact on the false-positive screening rate of a change to a fourth-generation assay at a regional US Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center. HIV screening tests performed by the laboratory from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017, prior to implementation of the new assay were compared with fourth-generation HIV screening tests performed from March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018. RESULTS: Of 7,516 third-generation HIV screening tests reviewed, 52 were reactive on the screening assay; 24 were true positives, 28 were false positives. The following year 7,802 fourth-generation HIV screening tests were performed and 23 were reactive on the screening assay; 16 were true positives and 7 were false positives. The positive predictive value for the third-generation test was 46% and 70% for the fourth-generation test. CONCLUSIONS: There were fewer false-positive results with testing with the more specific fourth- vs third-generation assay (0.09% vs 0.37%, respectively), which was statistically significant (P = .002). This reduction in false-positive screening would reduce the laboratory workload and would save an estimated $3,875 yearly and reduce the adverse effects of false-positive screening results for patients.
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: Elizabeth Hastie; Lisa Stangl; Karen Deutsch; Jeffrey Yin; Andrew Hull; Stephen A Spector; Jill Blumenthal Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.423