Low Prevalence Rate of Indeterminate Serological Human Immunodeficiency Virus Results among Pregnant Women from Burkina Faso, West Africa▿

Rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody tests have been adopted into national guidelines for HIV testing in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. One goal of HIV rapid testing is to minimize the occurrence of indeterminate results. From January 2005 to December 2007, plasma (or serum) samples from pregnant women in Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Faso, West Africa) were screened for HIV by using two rapid tests (the Determine HIV1/2 test [Abbott] and Genie II HIV-1/HIV-2 [Bio-Rad]) through a sequential algorithm prior to enrollment of HIV-1-infected women in a prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) trial (WHO/ANRS 1289 Kesho Bora trial). Samples exhibiting indeterminate results (Determine positive and Genie II negative) were further tested with a fourth-generation HIV enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Murex HIV Ag/Ab combination in 2005 and 2006 and Vironostika HIV Uni-Form II Ag/Ab in 2007). If positive, they were finally assessed for HIV-1 RNA (Generic HIV-1 RNA viral load assay; Biocentric). From a total of 44,653 samples tested, 597 (1.3%) showed indeterminate results. Of these, 367 could be analyzed by EIA. Only 15 (15/367, 4.1%) samples were found EIA reactive. Of these, 11 could be tested for HIV-1 RNA. All were HIV-1 RNA negative. In our clinical practice, pregnant women with such indeterminate results are now reassured during posttest counseling that they are very unlikely to be infected with HIV-1. As a consequence, such women with indeterminate results can reliably be considered negative when urgent clinical decisions (such as providing PMTCT prophylaxis) need to be taken

Maternal HIV-1 disease progression 18-24 months postdelivery according to antiretroviral prophylaxis regimen (triple-antiretroviral prophylaxis during pregnancy and breastfeeding vs zidovudine/single-dose nevirapine prophylaxis): the Kesho Bora randomized controlled trial

Background. Antiretroviral (ARV) prophylaxis effectively reduces mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV). However, it is unclear whether stopping ARVs after breastfeeding cessation affects maternal HIV disease progression. We assessed 18-24-month postpartum disease progression risk among women in a randomized trial assessing efficacy and safety of prophylactic maternal ARVs. Methods. From 2005 to 2008, HIV-infected pregnant women with CD4(+) counts of 200-500/mm(3) were randomized to receive either triple ARV (zidovudine, lamivudine, and lopinavir/ritonavir during pregnancy and breastfeeding) or AZT/sdNVP (zidovudine until delivery with single-dose nevirapine without postpartum prophylaxis). Maternal disease progression was defined as the combined endpoint of death, World Health Organization clinical stage 4 disease, or CD4(+) counts of <200/mm(3). Results. Among 824 randomized women, 789 had at least 1 study visit after cessation of ARV prophylaxis. Following delivery, progression risk up to 24 months postpartum in the triple ARV arm was significantly lower than in the AZT/sdNVP arm (15.7% vs 28.3%; P = .001), but the risks of progression after cessation of ARV prophylaxis (rather than after delivery) were not different (15.0% vs 13.8% 18 months after ARV cessation). Among women with CD4(+) counts of 200-349/mm(3) at enrollment, 24.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.7-35.5) progressed with triple ARV, and 23.0% (95% CI, 17.8-29.5) progressed with AZT/sdNVP, whereas few women in either arm (= 350/mm(3) progressed. Conclusions. Interrupting prolonged triple ARV prophylaxis had no effect on HIV progression following cessation (compared with AZT/sdNVP). However, women on triple ARV prophylaxis had lower progression risk during the time on triple ARV. Given the high rate of progression among women with CD4(+) cells of <350/mm(3), ARVs should not be discontinued in this group