Search

Obstetrician-gynecologists provide comprehensive primary and preventive care for women and are ideally suited to provide human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening for their patients. This paper provides a summary and rationale for the current recommendations for HIV testing among women in the United States, emphasizing recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [corrected] Who should receive HIV testing, when and how often testing should be conducted, and how testing should be offered are discussed. These recommendations are described separately for general populations (including nonpregnant women) and for pregnant women and their infants.

Objectives: This assessment in Brazil was to evaluate the performance of commercially available HIV rapid test (RT) against the gold standard testing and to establish a highly sensitive and specific RT algorithm for HIV diagnosis., Design: A prospective, anonymous and unlinked study., Methods: An evaluation of seven commercially available RT to compare their performance against the gold standard tests for Brazil. This includes two competing enzyme immunoassays plus a Western blot for confirmation. After informed consent, whole blood samples were collected from volunteers in voluntary counselling and testing sites (n = 400), antenatal clinics (n = 500) and from HIV-positive controls in AIDS treatment centres (n = 200). Two seroconversion panels, one HIV-1 subtype (B, B', C and F) panel and an operational assay performance evaluation were also part of the study parameters., Results: For the seven RT the clinical sensitivity ranged from 97.74 to 100% and clinical specificity from 99.43 to 100%. However, only four RT were considered acceptable after full evaluation. The two EIA had a clinical sensitivity of 100% and clinical specificity of 99.32 and 99.66%. Two RT had the same performance on the seroconversions panels as the EIA. The operational assay performance evaluation for the RT indicated that Hexagon and Capillus could not be classified as simple assays., Conclusion: We have provided evidence that RT assays can perform equally or better than EIA for the detection of HIV antibodies. The simplicity and rapidity of the RT warrants its utilization in an algorithm for a rapid diagnosis of HIV infection.

Over the past few years, several assays have been developed for the purpose of estimating HIV-1 incidence from cross-sectional population surveys. The tests detect features of the evolving virological or immunological response to HIV-1 infection that distinguish recent from established infection. Surveillance programmes that collect specimens from population surveys for HIV-1 prevalence can apply some of these tests to the same specimen sets to estimate incidence. We describe these tests and discuss the principle and strategy for implementation of a testing programme for recent infection in surveillance settings. Test-specific prerequisites, such as calibration, validation, and quality assurance, and other test-specific performance characteristics that may influence interpretation, epidemiological considerations that may guide application, and practical operational considerations for implementation in surveillance settings are considered. When properly and judiciously applied, the capacity to estimate incidence from existing programmes that conduct surveillance for prevalent HIV-1 infection will enhance the capacity for more precise and timely analysis of the dynamics of the epidemic and the effectiveness of public health interventions.

Physician satisfaction with the laboratory testing process is one indicator of the physician's perception of the quality of laboratory testing and the effectiveness of the communication of the laboratory results. This study compares the level of satisfaction of physicians reporting their experience with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) testing with the satisfaction levels of those physicians reporting their experience with hepatitis B virus (HBV) testing. By mail, 6,570 licensed San Diego County physicians were surveyed. Among those who tested for HIV-1 or HBV, their satisfaction with four different HIV-1 or HBV testing parameters was assessed: 1) specimen submission process, 2) test accuracy, 3) clarity of test report, and 4) turnaround time. Overall, physician satisfaction with both HIV-1 and HBV testing was high, particularly for test accuracy (means of 2.79 and 2.84, respectively on a 3-point scale), although slightly lower for turnaround time (means of 2.40 and 2.43, respectively). Mean satisfaction with the specimen submission process and test accuracy were higher for physicians who ordered HBV tests than for those who ordered HIV-1 tests. Satisfaction with the four HIV-1 testing process parameters varied significantly by physician specialty, practice type, and type of laboratory used. For HBV testing, significant differences were observed only for turnaround time. For both HIV-1 and HBV testing, those who received a final interpretation of laboratory results were more satisfied with test report clarity than those who did not. Although physician satisfaction with HIV-1 and HBV testing is high, this study identifies the least satisfied groups and specific areas in the testing process than may need improvement.

Objectives: To determine the sensitivity of HIV-antibody assays for detecting low levels of HIV antibody using seroconversion and other panels containing plasma of varying titres., Methods: Eight HIV-antibody assays, available under the World Health Organization bulk-procurement agreement, were evaluated on sets of sequential plasma samples derived from 11 individuals who had recently become HIV-infected (seroconversion panels). In addition, two non-seroconversion panels, consisting of low performance (titre) and mixed titre samples were used to further define the sensitivity of the assays. The eight assays included two rapid tests, one simple test, and five enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA)., Results: On average, the eight assays detected antibody 0.5-4.8 days later than the reference test (Abbott HIV-1/HIV-2 3rd generation ELISA); these differences were statistically significant for six of the eight tests. All tests performed well on the low performance and mixed titre panels. All eight assays also had comparable sensitivity to that of the reference test on a large panel of known positive plasma. The additional risk of missing an infectious unit of blood during seroconversion by using the least sensitive rather than the reference test was estimated to be 1 in 7600 and 1 in 76 million at annual HIV incidence rates of 1 and 0.0001%, respectively. The cost of eliminating this additional risk by using the reference test is between US$ 15,150 and 151 million per unit detected at the above incidence rates., Conclusions: Although there are differences in sensitivity between the assays when used to test blood from individuals during the course of seroconversion, the differences are small, and all eight tests are appropriate for use as screening tests.

Five commercial screening assays for HIV-1, evaluated for their usefulness in detecting infection in high-risk groups in the East African country of Djibouti, produced varying degrees of performance when compared to Western blot and immunofluorescence confirmatory assays. In this population with a low prevalence of HIV infection (16/599), two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA; Abbott and Elavia) and two rapid assays (cambridge latex agglutination and Du Pont's HIV-CHEK) exhibited less than optimal sensitivities. However, with the exception of Elavia, these assays displayed excellent specificities. The fifth test (Serodia gelatin agglutination) produced the highest sensitivity (0.938) and negative predictive value but the lowest specificity and positive predictive value of all five tests. False positive reactions, which occurred only with the Elavia and Serodia tests, could not be explained on the basis of early infection in patients or cross-reactions with the related retroviruses HIV-2 and HTLV-I. We conclude that none of the five tests alone is sufficient in this testing situation, but that a combination of tests could satisfy most requirements for identifying HIV-1 reactive and non-reactive sera.