Sensitivity of Five Rapid HIV Tests on Oral Fluid or Finger-Stick Whole Blood: A Real-Time Comparison in a Healthcare Setting

BACKGROUND: Health authorities in several countries recently recommended the expansion of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody testing, including the use of rapid tests. Several HIV rapid tests are now licensed in Europe but their sensitivity on total blood and/or oral fluid in routine healthcare settings is not known. METHODS AND FINDINGS: 200 adults with documented HIV-1 (n=194) or HIV-2 infection (n=6) were prospectively screened with five HIV rapid tests using either oral fluid (OF) or finger-stick whole blood (FSB). The OraQuick Advance rapid HIV1/2 was first applied to OF and then to FSB, while the other tests were applied to FSB, in the following order: Vikia HIV 1/2, Determine HIV 1-2, Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo and INSTI HIV-1/HIV-2. Tests negative on FSB were repeated on paired serum samples. Twenty randomly selected HIV-seronegative subjects served as controls, and the results were read blindly. Most patients had HIV-1 subtype B infection (63.3%) and most were on antiretroviral therapy (68.5%). Sensitivity was 86.5%, 94.5%, 98.5%, 94.9%, 95.8% and 99% respectively, with OraQuick OF, OraQuick FSB, Vikia, Determine, Determine Ag/Ab Combo and INSTI (p<0.0001). OraQuick was less sensitive on OF than on FSB (p=0.008). Among the six patients with three or more negative tests, two had recent HIV infection and four patients on antiretroviral therapy had undetectable plasma viral load. When patients positive in all the tests were compared with patients who had at least one negative test, only a plasma HIV RNA level<200 cp/ml was significantly associated with a false-negative result (p=0.009). When the 33 rapid tests negative on FSB were repeated on serum, all but six (5 negative with OraQuick, 1 with INSTI) were positive. The sensitivity of OraQuick, Determine and Determine Ag/Ab Combo was significantly better on serum than on FSB (97.5%, p=0.04; 100%, p=0.004; and 100%, p=0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: When evaluated in a healthcare setting, rapid HIV tests were less sensitive on oral fluid than on finger-stick whole blood and less sensitive on finger-stick whole blood than on serum

Cost-Effectiveness of Pooled Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing for Acute HIV Infection after Third-Generation HIV Antibody Screening and Rapid Testing in the United States: A Comparison of Three Public Health Settings

Angela Hutchinson and colleagues conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of pooled nucleic acid amplification testing following HIV testing and show that it is not cost-effective at recommended antibody testing intervals for high-risk persons except in very high-incidence settings

HIV Surveillance in a Large, Community-Based Study: Results from the Pilot Study of Project Accept (HIV Prevention Trials Network 043)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Project Accept is a community randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of community mobilization, mobile testing, same-day results, and post-test support for the prevention of HIV infection in Thailand, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. We evaluated the accuracy of in-country HIV rapid testing and determined HIV prevalence in the Project Accept pilot study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two HIV rapid tests were performed in parallel in local laboratories. If the first two rapid tests were discordant (one reactive, one non-reactive), a third HIV rapid test or enzyme immunoassay was performed. Samples were designated HIV NEG if the first two tests were non-reactive, HIV DISC if the first two tests were discordant, and HIV POS if the first two tests were reactive. Samples were re-analyzed in the United States using a panel of laboratory tests.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>HIV infection status was correctly determined based on-in country testing for 2,236 (99.5%) of 2,247 participants [7 (0.37%) of 1,907 HIV NEG samples were HIV-positive; 2 (0.63%) of 317 HIV POS samples were HIV-negative; 2 (8.3%) of 24 HIV DISC samples were incorrectly identified as HIV-positive based on the in-country tie-breaker test]. HIV prevalence was: Thailand: 0.6%, Tanzania: 5.0%, Zimbabwe 14.7%, Soweto South Africa: 19.4%, Vulindlela, South Africa: 24.4%, (overall prevalence: 14.4%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In-country testing based on two HIV rapid tests correctly identified the HIV infection status for 99.5% of study participants; most participants with discordant HIV rapid tests were not infected. HIV prevalence varied considerably across the study sites (range: 0.6% to 24.4%).</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov registry number <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00203749">NCT00203749</a>.</p

Arguments for and against HIV self-testing

Brian R Wood,1 Carl Ballenger,1 Joanne D Stekler1,21Division of Allergy and Infectious Disease, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; 2Public Health, Seattle and King County HIV/STD Program, Seattle, WA, USA Abstract: Approximately 60% of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals are unaware of their infection, and stigma and discrimination continue to threaten acceptance of HIV testing services worldwide. Self-testing for HIV has garnered controversy for years and the debate reignited with the approval of a point-of-care test for over-the-counter sale in the US in 2012. Here, we present arguments for and against HIV self-testing. The case in support of HIV self-testing contends that: the modality is highly acceptable, especially among the most at-risk individuals; self-testing empowers users, thus helping to normalize testing; and mutual partner testing has the potential to increase awareness of risk and avert condomless sex between discordant partners. Arguments against HIV self-testing include: cost limits access to those who need testing most; false-negative results, especially during the window period, may lead to false reassurance and could promote sex between discordant partners at the time of highest infectivity; opportunities for counseling, linkage to care, and diagnosis of other sexually transmitted infections may be missed; and self-testing leads to potential for coercion between partners. Research is needed to better define the risks of self-testing, especially as performance of the assays improves, and to delineate the benefits of programs designed to improve access to self-test kits, because this testing modality has numerous potential advantages and drawbacks. Keywords: HIV, AIDS, self-testing, diagnosis, screenin

Effective strategies to promote HIV self-testing for men who have sex with men: Evidence from a mathematical model

10.1016/j.epidem.2021.100518Epidemics37100518