Performance of rapid tests for discrimination between HIV‐1 and/or HIV‐2 infections. Issue 12 (16th June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gautheret‐Dejean, Agnès; Bocobza, Jonathan; Brunet, Sylvie; Damond, Florence; Plantier, Jean‐Christophe; Barin, Francis
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical virology. Volume 87:Issue 12(2015:Dec.)
• Page Start: 2061
• Page End: 2066
• Publication Date: 2015-06-16
• Subjects: Virology -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmv.24282
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0146-6615

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jmv24282-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <p>Major differences exist between HIV‐1 and HIV‐2 in terms of epidemiology, pathogenicity, sensitivity to antiretrovirals. Determining the type of HIV infecting a patient is essential for management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of simple/rapid tests to differentiate between HIV‐1 and/or HIV‐2 infections. We analyzed 116 samples from patients infected with HIV‐1 (n = 61), HIV‐2 (n = 47), or HIV‐1+HIV‐2 (n = 8) at the chronic stage of infection. Each sample was tested with SD Bioline HIV‐1/2 3.0, ImmunoFlow HIV1–HIV2, ImmunoFlow HIV1–HIV2 (WB), Genie III HIV‐1/HIV‐2, ImmunoComb HIV1&2 BiSpot. HIV‐1, or HIV‐2 single infection was identified with a sensitivity ranging from 90% to 100%. The ability to detect dual infection was less sensitive (12.5–100%). SD Bioline HIV‐1/2 3.0, ImmunoFlow HIV1–HIV2, and Genie III were unable to detect HIV‐1 group O infection in one, one and two cases, respectively. The specificity of detection of HIV‐1, HIV‐2, or HIV‐1+HIV‐2 antibodies differed greatly (36–100%). ImmunoComb BiSpot had the highest sensitivity values (99–100% for HIV‐1, 98% for HIV‐2, and 75–87.5% for dual infection) and specificity values (94–100% for HIV‐1, 100% for HIV‐2, and 97–100% for dual infection). In conclusion, this study showed that no single rapid test had a perfect sensitivity/specificity ratio, particularly in the case of the double infections. <bold><italic>J. Med. Virol. 87:2061–2066, 2015</italic>.</bold> © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p> </sec> </abstract>