Dataset Information

Performance of an Alternative Laboratory-Based HIV Diagnostic Testing Algorithm Using HIV-1 RNA Viral Load.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since 2014, the recommended algorithm for laboratory diagnosis of HIV infection in the United States has consisted of an HIV-1/2 antigen/antibody (Ag/Ab) test followed by an HIV-1/2 antibody (Ab) differentiation test and, if necessary, a diagnostic HIV-1 nucleic acid test to resolve discordant or indeterminate results.

Methods

Using stored specimens from persons seeking HIV testing who had not received a previous diagnosis or treatment, we compared the performance of a 3-step alternative algorithm consisting of an Ag/Ab test followed by a quantitative HIV-1 RNA viral load assay and, if viral load is not detected, an Ab differentiation test, to that of the recommended algorithm. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of 5 Ag/Ab tests and the proportion of specimens correctly classified by the alternative algorithm compared with the recommended algorithm. Results were examined separately for specimens classified as early infection, established infection, and false-reactive screening.

Results

Sensitivity and specificity were similar among all Ag/Ab tests. Viral load quantification correctly classified all specimens from early infection, all false-reactive screening specimens, and the majority of specimens from established infection.

Conclusions

Although cost, regulatory barriers, test availability, and the ability to differentiate early from established infection must be considered, this alternative algorithm can potentially decrease the total number of tests performed and reduce turnaround time, thereby streamlining HIV diagnosis and initiation of treatment.

SUBMITTER: Pitasi MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7246040 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent WHO testing guidelines for resource limited settings diagnose HIV on the basis of screening tests without a confirmation test due to cost constraints. This leads to a potential risk of false positive HIV diagnosis. In this paper, we evaluate the dilution test, a novel method for confirmation testing, which is simple, rapid, and low cost. The principle of the dilution test is to alter the sensitivity of a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) by dilution of the sample, in order to screen out the cross reacting antibodies responsible for falsely positive RDT results.MethodsParticipants were recruited from two testing centres in Ethiopia where a tiebreaker algorithm using 3 different RDTs in series is used to diagnose HIV. All samples positive on the initial screening RDT and every 10th negative sample underwent testing with the gold standard and dilution test. Dilution testing was performed using Determine™ rapid diagnostic test at 6 different dilutions. Results were compared to the gold standard of Western Blot; where Western Blot was indeterminate, PCR testing determined the final result.Results2895 samples were recruited to the study. 247 were positive for a prevalence of 8.5 % (247/2895). A total of 495 samples underwent dilution testing. The RDT diagnostic algorithm misclassified 18 samples as positive. Dilution at the level of 1/160 was able to correctly identify all these 18 false positives, but at a cost of a single false negative result (sensitivity 99.6 %, 95 % CI 97.8-100; specificity 100 %, 95 % CI: 98.5-100). Concordance between the gold standard and the 1/160 dilution strength was 99.8 %.ConclusionThis study provides proof of concept for a new, low cost method of confirming HIV diagnosis in resource-limited settings. It has potential for use as a supplementary test in a confirmatory algorithm, whereby double positive RDT results undergo dilution testing, with positive results confirming HIV infection. Negative results require nucleic acid testing to rule out false negative results due to seroconversion or misclassification by the lower sensitivity dilution test. Further research is needed to determine if these results can be replicated in other settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01716299 .

Project description:Management of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2) infections present unique challenges due to low viral titers, slow disease progression, and poor response to standard antiviral therapies. The need for a nucleic acid assay to detect and quantify HIV-2 virus has led to the development of a number of molecular-based assays for detection and/or quantification of HIV-2 viral RNA in plasma in order to provide laboratory evidence of HIV-2 infection and viral loads for use in treatment decisions. As HIV-2 is less pathogenic and transmissible than HIV-1 and has resistance to several of the antiretroviral drugs, delay of treatment is common. Cross sero-reactivity between HIV-1 and HIV-2 makes it difficult to distinguish between the two viruses based upon serological tests. As such we developed a quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) assay targeting the 5' long terminal repeat of HIV-2 for detection and quantification of HIV-2 viral RNA in plasma to identify HIV-2 infection and for use in viral load monitoring. Serial dilutions of cultured HIV-2 virus demonstrated a wide dynamic range (10 to 100,000 copies/ml) with excellent reproducibility (standard deviation from 0.12-0.19), linearity (R2 = 0.9994), and a lower limit of detection at 79 copies/ml (NIH-Z). The assay is highly specific for HIV-2 Groups A and B and exhibits no cross reactivity to HIV-1, HBV or HCV. Precision of the assay was demonstrated for the High (Mean = 6.41; SD = 0.12) and Medium (Mean = 4.46; SD = 0.13) HIV-2 positive controls. Replicate testing of clinical specimens showed good reproducibility above 1,000 copies/ml, with higher variability under 1,000 copies/ml. Analysis of 220 plasma samples from HIV-2 infected West African individuals demonstrated significantly lower viral loads than those observed in HIV-1 infections, consistent with results of previous studies. Slightly more than seven percent of clinical samples (7.3%) demonstrated viral loads above 100,000 copies/ml, while 37.3% of samples were undetectable. The high sensitivity, specificity, precision, and linearity of the WRAIR qRT-PCR assay makes it well suited for detection and monitoring of HIV-2 RNA levels in plasma of infected individuals.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Technically, HIV-1 tropism can be evaluated in plasma or peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). However, only tropism testing of plasma HIV-1 has been validated as a tool to predict virological response to CCR5 antagonists in clinical trials. The preferable tropism testing strategy in subjects with undetectable HIV-1 viremia, in whom plasma tropism testing is not feasible, remains uncertain. METHODS & RESULTS: We designed a proof-of-concept study including 30 chronically HIV-1-infected individuals who achieved HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL during at least 2 years after first-line ART initiation. First, we determined the diagnostic accuracy of 454 and population sequencing of gp120 V3-loops in plasma and PBMCs, as well as of MT-2 assays before ART initiation. The Enhanced Sensitivity Trofile Assay (ESTA) was used as the technical reference standard. 454 sequencing of plasma viruses provided the highest agreement with ESTA. The accuracy of 454 sequencing decreased in PBMCs due to reduced specificity. Population sequencing in plasma and PBMCs was slightly less accurate than plasma 454 sequencing, being less sensitive but more specific. MT-2 assays had low sensitivity but 100% specificity. Then, we used optimized 454 sequence data to investigate viral evolution in PBMCs during viremia suppression and only found evolution of R5 viruses in one subject. No de novo CXCR4-using HIV-1 production was observed over time. Finally, Slatkin-Maddison tests suggested that plasma and cell-associated V3 forms were sometimes compartmentalized. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of tropism shifts during viremia suppression suggests that, when available, testing of stored plasma samples is generally safe and informative, provided that HIV-1 suppression is maintained. Tropism testing in PBMCs may not necessarily produce equivalent biological results to plasma, because the structure of viral populations and the diagnostic performance of tropism assays may sometimes vary between compartments. Thereby, proviral DNA tropism testing should be specifically validated in clinical trials before it can be applied to routine clinical decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate routine HIV viral load testing is essential for assessing the efficacy of antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens and the emergence of drug resistance. While the use of plasma specimens is the standard for viral load testing, its use is restricted by the limited ambient temperature stability of viral load biomarkers in whole blood and plasma during storage and transportation and the limited cold chain available between many health care facilities in resource-limited settings. Alternative specimen types and technologies, such as dried blood spots, may address these issues and increase access to viral load testing; however, their technical performance is unclear. To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing viral load results from paired dried blood spot and plasma specimens analyzed with commonly used viral load testing technologies.Methods and findingsStandard databases, conferences, and gray literature were searched in 2013 and 2018. Nearly all studies identified (60) were conducted between 2007 and 2018. Data from 40 of the 60 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which accounted for a total of 10,871 paired dried blood spot:plasma data points. We used random effects models to determine the bias, accuracy, precision, and misclassification for each viral load technology and to account for between-study variation. Dried blood spot specimens produced consistently higher mean viral loads across all technologies when compared to plasma specimens. However, when used to identify treatment failure, each technology compared best to plasma at a threshold of 1,000 copies/ml, the present World Health Organization recommended treatment failure threshold. Some heterogeneity existed between technologies; however, 5 technologies had a sensitivity greater than 95%. Furthermore, 5 technologies had a specificity greater than 85% yet 2 technologies had a specificity less than 60% using a treatment failure threshold of 1,000 copies/ml. The study's main limitation was the direct applicability of findings as nearly all studies to date used dried blood spot samples prepared in laboratories using precision pipetting that resulted in consistent input volumes.ConclusionsThis analysis provides evidence to support the implementation and scale-up of dried blood spot specimens for viral load testing using the same 1,000 copies/ml treatment failure threshold as used with plasma specimens. This may support improved access to viral load testing in resource-limited settings lacking the required infrastructure and cold chain storage for testing with plasma specimens.

Project description:Viral load (VL) monitoring is the standard of care in developing country settings for detecting HIV treatment failure. Since 2010 the World Health Organization has recommended a phase-in approach to VL monitoring in resource-limited settings. We conducted a systematic review of the accuracy and precision of HIV VL technologies for treatment monitoring.A search of Medline and Embase was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy or reproducibility of commercially available HIV VL assays. 37 studies were included for review including evaluations of the Amplicor Monitor HIV-1 v1.5 (n?=?25), Cobas TaqMan v2.0 (n?=?11), Abbott RealTime HIV-1 (n?=?23), Versant HIV-1 RNA bDNA 3.0 (n?=?15), Versant HIV-1 RNA kPCR 1.0 (n?=?2), ExaVir Load v3 (n?=?2), and NucliSens EasyQ v2.0 (n?=?1). All currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma virus levels at a lower detection limit of 1,000 copies/mL. Bias data comparing the Abbott RealTime HIV-1, TaqMan v2.0 to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5 showed a tendency of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 to under-estimate results while the TaqMan v2.0 overestimated VL counts. Compared to the Amplicor Monitor v1.5, 2-26% and 9-70% of results from the Versant bDNA 3.0 and Abbott RealTime HIV-1 differed by greater than 0.5log10. The average intra and inter-assay variation of the Abbott RealTime HIV-1 were 2.95% (range 2.0-5.1%) and 5.44% (range 1.17-30.00%) across the range of VL counts (2log10-7log10).This review found that all currently available HIV VL assays are of sufficient sensitivity to detect plasma VL of 1,000 copies/mL as a threshold to initiate investigations of treatment adherence or possible treatment failure. Sources of variability between VL assays include differences in technology platform, plasma input volume, and ability to detect HIV-1 subtypes. Monitoring of individual patients should be performed on the same technology platform to ensure appropriate interpretation of changes in VL. Prospero registration # CD42013003603.

Project description:BackgroundIn most high HIV burden countries, many HIV patients do not have reliable access to required diagnostic laboratory tests. Task shifting of clinical tasks to lower cadres of health care workers and lay counselors has been successful in scaling up treatment for HIV and may also be an effective strategy in expanding access to essential diagnostic testing.MethodsWe screened major electronic databases between 1 January 2005 to 26 August 2018 to identify studies assessing ease of use and accuracy of task shifting of HIV-related diagnostic testing and/or specimen collection to non-laboratory health staff. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts for studies that analyzed diagnostic accuracy, patient impact, ease-of-use, or cost-effectiveness. Studies were assessed for quality, bias, and applicability following the QUADAS-2 framework. We generated summary estimates using random-effects meta-analyses.ResultsWe identified 42 relevant studies. Overall, point-of-care CD4 testing performed by non-laboratory staff had a mean bias of -54.44 (95% CI: -72.40 --36.48) compared to conventional laboratory-based. Though studies were limited, the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care alanine transaminase enzyme (ALT) and hemoglobin testing performed by non-laboratory staff was comparable to conventional laboratory-based testing by laboratory professionals. Point-of-care testing and/or specimen collection were generally found to be acceptable and easy to use for non-laboratory staff.ConclusionsTask shifting of testing using point-of-care technologies to non-laboratory staff was comparable to laboratory professionals operating the same technology in the laboratory. Some variability was observed comparing the performance of point-of-care CD4 testing by non-laboratory staff to conventional laboratory-based technologies by laboratory professionals indicating potential lower performance was likely technological rather than operator caused. The benefits of task shifting of testing may outweigh any possible harms as task shifting allows for increased decentralization, access of specific diagnostics, and faster result delivery.

Project description:BackgroundEgypt was among the first 10 countries in Africa that experienced COVID-19 cases. The sudden surge in the number of cases is overwhelming the capacity of the national healthcare system, particularly in developing countries. Central to the containment of the ongoing pandemic is the availability of rapid and accurate diagnostic tests that could pinpoint patients at early disease stages. In the current study, we aimed to (1) Evaluate the diagnostic performance of the rapid antigen test (RAT) "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" against reverse transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) in eighty-three swabs collected from COVID-19 suspected individuals showing various demographic features, clinical and radiological findings. (2) Test whether measuring laboratory parameters in participant's blood would enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT. (3) Identify the most important features that determine the results of both RAT and RT-qPCR.MethodsDiagnostic measurements (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, etc.) and receiver operating characteristic curve were used to assess the clinical performance of "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag". We used the support vector machine (SVM) model to investigate whether measuring laboratory indices would enhance the accuracy of RAT. Moreover, a random forest classification model was used to determine the most important determinants of the results of RAT and RT-qPCR for COVID-19 diagnosis.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RAT were 78.2, 64.2, and 75.9%, respectively. Samples with high viral load and those that were collected within one-week post-symptoms showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy. The SVM modeling showed that measuring laboratory indices did not enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT.Conclusion"Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" should not be used alone for COVID-19 diagnosis due to its low diagnostic performance relative to the RT-qPCR. RAT is best used at the early disease stage and in patients with high viral load.