Failure of A Novel, Rapid Antigen and Antibody Combination Test to Detect Antigen-Positive HIV Infection in African Adults with Early HIV Infection

BACKGROUND: Acute HIV infection (prior to antibody seroconversion) represents a high-risk window for HIV transmission. Development of a test to detect acute infection at the point-of-care is urgent. METHODS: Volunteers enrolled in a prospective study of HIV incidence in four African cities, Kigali in Rwanda and Ndola, Kitwe and Lusaka in Zambia, were tested regularly for HIV by rapid antibody test and p24 antigen ELISA. Five subgroups of samples were also tested by the Determine Ag/Ab Combo test 1) Antigen positive, antibody negative (acute infection); 2) Antigen positive, antibody positive; 3) Antigen negative, antibody positive; 4) Antigen negative, antibody negative; and 5) Antigen false positive, antibody negative (HIV uninfected). A sixth group included serial dilutions from a p24 antigen-positive control sample. Combo test results were reported as antigen positive, antibody positive, or both. RESULTS: Of 34 group 1 samples with VL between 5x105 and >1.5x107 copies/mL (median 3.5x106), 1 (2.9%) was detected by the Combo antigen component, 7 (20.6%) others were positive by the Combo antibody component. No group 2 samples were antigen positive by the Combo test (0/18). Sensitivity of the Combo antigen test was therefore 1.9% (1/52, 95% CI 0.0, 9.9). One false positive Combo antibody result (1/30, 3.3%) was observed in group 4. No false-positive Combo antigen results were observed. The Combo antigen test was positive in group 6 at concentrations of 80 pg/mL, faintly positive at 40 and 20 pg/mL, and negative thereafter. The p24 ELISA antigen test remained positive at 5 pg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Although the antibody component of the Combo test detected antibodies to HIV earlier than the comparison antibody tests used, less than 2% of the cases of antigen-positive HIV infection were detected by the Combo antigen component. The development of a rapid point-of-care test to diagnose acute HIV infection remains an urgent goal

Early Diagnosis of HIV Infection in Infants - One Caribbean and Six Sub-Saharan African Countries, 2011-2015.

Pediatric human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection remains an important public health issue in resource-limited settings. In 2015, 1.4 million children aged 50% decline. The most common challenges for access to testing for early infant diagnosis included difficulties in specimen transport, long turnaround time between specimen collection and receipt of results, and limitations in supply chain management. Further reductions in HIV mortality in children can be achieved through continued expansion and improvement of services for early infant diagnosis in PEPFAR-supported countries, including initiatives targeted to reach HIV-exposed infants, ensure access to programs for early infant diagnosis of HIV, and facilitate prompt linkage to treatment for children diagnosed with HIV infection

The role of point-of-care viral load monitoring in achieving the target of 90% suppression in HIV-infected patients in Nigeria: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 90–90-90 goal envisions 90% of all people receiving antiretroviral therapy to be virally suppressed by 2020. Implied in that goal is that viral load be quantified for all patients receiving treatment, which is a challenging undertaking given the complexity and high cost of standard-of-care viral load testing methods. Recently developed point-of-care viral load testing devices offer new promise to improve access to viral load testing by bringing the test closer to the patient and also returning results faster, often same-day. While manufactures have evaluated point-of-care assays using reference panels, empiric data examining the impact of the new technology against standard-of-care monitoring in low- and middle-income settings are lacking. Our goal in this trial is to compare a point-of-care to standard-of-care viral load test on impact on various clinical outcomes as well to assess the acceptability and feasibility of using the assay in a resource-limited setting. Methods Using a two-arm randomized control trial design, we will enroll 794 patients from two different HIV treatment sites in Nigeria. Patients will be randomized 1:1 for point-of-care or standard-of-care viral load monitoring (397 patients per arm). Following initiation of treatment, viral load will be monitored at patients’ 6- and 12-month follow-up visits using either point-of-care or standard-of-care testing methods, based on trial assignment. The monitoring schedule will follow national treatment guidelines. The primary outcome measure in this trial is proportion of patients with viral suppression at month 12 post-initiation of treatment. The secondary outcome measures encompass acceptability, feasibility, and virologic impact variables. Discussion This clinical trial will provide information on the impact of using point-of-care versus standard-of-care viral load testing on patient clinical outcomes; the study will also supply data on the acceptability and feasibility of point-of-care viral load monitoring in a resource-limited setting. If this method of testing is acceptable and feasible, and also superior to standard of care, the results of the trial and the information gathered will inform future scaled implementation and further optimization of the clinic-laboratory network that is critical for monitoring achievement of the 90–90-90 goals. Trial registration US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03533868. Date of Registration: 23 May 2018. Protocol Version: 10. Protocol Date: 30 March 2018

Performance of the Determine Ag/Ab Combo test.

<p>Group 1: Antigen positive, antibody negative acute HIV infection (Ag+Ab−).</p><p>Group 2: Antigen positive, antibody positive early HIV infection (Ag+Ab+).</p><p>Group 3: Antigen negative, antibody positive chronic HIV infection (Ag−Ab+).</p><p>Group 4: Antigen negative, antibody negative volunteers without HIV infection (Ag−Ab−).</p><p>Group 5: Antigen false positive, antibody negative volunteers without HIV infection (Ag−Ab−).</p><p>Ag: p24 antigen, Ab: HIV antibody, weak pos: the respective assay indicator was fainter than the control indicator. This is considered “positive” in our analyses, as per the package insert.</p

Comparison of the p24 ELISA (Vironostika) and Combo test (antigen component) against serially diluted p24 antigen-positive controls.

*<p>Average OD (Optical Density) of two runs. An OD ≥0.10 is considered a positive result.</p

ELISA p24 Antigen Concentration and Viral Load Summary Statistics.

*<p>Upper limit of detection for the VL assay  = 15,000,000, any observation that exceeded 15,000,000 recorded as 15,000,001.</p><p>Group 1: Antigen positive, antibody negative i.e. acute HIV infection (Ag+ Ab−).</p><p>Group 2: Antigen positive, antibody positive i.e. early HIV infection (Ag+ Ab+).</p