Search

The performance of two HIV antigen enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), the HTLV-III antigen EIA (Abbott) and the Innotest HIV antigen EIA (Innogenetics), was assessed using 276 HIV-1 antibody positive and 42 HIV antibody negative sera from European and African individuals. On the initial screening 16 % (51/318) of the sera were reactive in the Abbott EIA and 21.4 % (68/318) in the Innotest EIA. The Innotest detected significantly more confirmed HIV antigen positive sera (55/58, 94.6 %) than the Abbott EIA (41/58, 70.7 %). The presence of free detectable HIV antigen in African and European sera was strongly associated with the clinical classification CDC IV and with low p24 antibody levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A total of 152 sera from African subjects were tested for presence of antibody to human immunodeficiency virus using four enzyme immunoassays (EIA) marketed by Abbott Diagnostics, Organon Teknika, Wellcome and Diagnostics Pasteur respectively, an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) and an immunoblot assay (IBA) as reference test. The sensitivity (95 % confidence limits, CL) of the EIAs and the IFA ranged between 80.9 % and 99.1 %. The specificity of the Abbott EIA was lower (95 % CL: 38.1-72 %) than that of the other assays (95 % CL: 83.5-100 %). The use of an IFA or the Wellcome competitive EIA as confirmatory test on initially EIA positive sera yielded a specificity of 85.5-100% (95 % CL) compared with the IBA. The costs of screening by an EIA, followed by confirmatory testing of reactive sera with IFA or the Wellcome EIA and IBA on discrepant test results was similar for all combinations with the exception of initial screening with the Abbott EIA which was more expensive. Using a limited number of sera from African subjects no one test system yielded a significantly superior degree of specificity or sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]