HIV-1 viral load and phenotypic antiretroviral drug resistance assays based on reverse transcriptase activity in comparison to amplification based HIV-1 RNA and genotypic assays

Amplification based HIV-1 viral load and genotypic resistance assays are expensive, technologically complex and may be difficult to implement in resource limited settings. Inexpensive, simpler assays are urgently needed

Using a simplified human immunodeficiency virus type 1 p24 antigen assay to diagnose pediatric HIV-infection in Malawi

There is a worldwide need for a pediatric HIV-1 diagnostic test that has a high diagnostic accuracy, is technically simple and cost efficient. The Up24 HIV-1 assay, which requires both the HIV-1 p24 ELISA and the ELAST signal amplification kit, has previously been shown to be a robust tool to diagnose pediatric HIV-1 from dried whole blood spots (DBS) (Cachafeiro et al., JCM 2009;47:459–6213). In order to make the assay more accessible to a resource-limited clinical setting, we eliminated the ELAST system, which simplified the Up24 assay, reduced its cost, and tested the accuracy of the modified assay in a rural Malawian hospital

Performance characteristics of the Cavidi ExaVir viral load assay and the ultra-sensitive P24 assay relative to the Roche Monitor HIV-1 RNA assay

The Cavidi viral load assay and the ultra-sensitive p24 antigen assay (Up24 Ag) have been suggested as more feasible alternatives to PCR-based HIV viral load assays for use in monitoring patients infected with HIV-1 in resource-limited settings

Comparison of an Assay Using Signal Amplification of the Heat-Dissociated p24 Antigen with the Roche Monitor Human Immunodeficiency Virus RNA Assay

We compared an assay using signal amplification of a heat-dissociated p24 antigen (HDAg) with the Roche Monitor human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA assay. The two assays gave comparable results when 130 specimens from 130 patients were tested (r = 0.60, P < 0.0001). The HDAg assay was almost as sensitive (85%) as the Roche HIV RNA kit (95%), just as specific (25 negative results from 25 HIV seronegative volunteers [100%]), less variable (mean log standard deviation of 0.07 compared to 0.11 when eight specimens were tested three or four times), and less expensive (reagent and labor costs, $8 versus$75). The assay appeared to be useful for monitoring established patients (n = 17) and identifying seroconverters (n = 4). HIV subtypes A to F were all recognized. This assay should be useful for monitoring patients in resource-poor countries and for monitoring vaccine recipients

Ultrasensitive p24 Antigen Assay for Diagnosis of Perinatal Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection▿

We evaluated an ultrasensitive p24 antigen enzyme immunosorbent assay on 802 plasma specimens from 582 infants and children of 0 to 180 days of age. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.7% and 98.5%, respectively. After exclusion of infants of less than 7 days of age, the sensitivity and specificity were 93.7% and 98.3%, respectively

Comparison of Two Rapid Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Assays, Determine HIV-1/2 and OraQuick Advance Rapid HIV-1/2, for Detection of Recent HIV Seroconversion▿

Modified protocols of two rapid tests were compared with a less sensitive (LS) (detuned) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for their abilities to distinguish recent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) seroconversion from long-term infections. The results for samples from 100 HIV-positive patient that had previously been tested by the Vironostika LS EIA had a 97% concordance with the results of the Determine HIV 1/2 assay and 93% concordance with those of the OraQuick HIV 1/2 assay

Comparison of Two Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) RNA Surrogate Assays to the Standard HIV RNA Assay

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA testing is the gold standard for monitoring antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients. However, equipment and reagent costs preclude widespread use of the assay in resource-limited settings. The Perkin-Elmer Ultrasensitive p24 assay and the Cavidi Exavir Load assay both offer potentially simpler, less costly technologies for monitoring viral load. These assays were compared to the Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test, v1.5, using panels of clinical samples (subtype B) from HIV-positive subjects and HIV-spiked samples (subtypes A, C, D, CRF_01AE, CRF_02AG, and F). The Ultrasensitive p24 assay detected 100% of the spiked samples with virus loads of >250,000copies/ml and 61% of the clinical samples with virus loads of 219 to 288,850 copies/ml. Detection rates were improved substantially if an external lysis buffer was added to the procedure. The Cavidi assay detected 54 to 100% of spiked samples with virus loads >10,000 copies/ml and 68% of the clinical samples. These detection rates were also greatly improved with a newly implemented version of this kit. Coefficients of variation demonstrate good reproducibility for each of these kits. The results from the Cavidi v1.0, Cavidi v2.0, and Perkin-Elmer, and the Perkin-Elmer Plus external buffers all correlated well with the results from the Roche Monitor Test (r = 0.83 to 0.96, r = 0.84 to 0.99, r = 0.58 to 0.67, and r = 0.59 to 0.95, respectively). Thus, the use of these two assays for monitoring patients, together with less-frequent confirmation testing, offers a feasible alternative to frequent HIV RNA testing in resource-limited settings