Search

HIV rapid testing algorithms (RTAs) using any two orthogonal rapid tests (RTs) allow for on-site confirmation of infection. RTs vary in performance characteristics therefore the selection of RTs in an algorithm may affect identification of infection, particularly if acute. National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) assessed RTAs among men who have sex with men recruited using anonymous venue-based sampling. Different algorithms were evaluated among participants who self-reported never having received a positive HIV test result prior to the interview. NHBS project areas performed sequential or parallel RTs using whole blood. Participants with at least one reactive RT were offered anonymous linkage to care and provided a dried blood spot (DBS) for testing at CDC. Discordant results (RT-1 reactive/RT-2 non-reactive) were tested at CDC with lab protocols modified for DBS. DBS were also tested for HIV-1 RNA (VL) and antiretroviral (ARV) drug levels. Of 6500 RTAs, 238 were RT-1 reactive; of those, 97.1% (231/238) had concordant results (RT-1/RT-2 reactive) and 2.9% (7/238) had discordant results. Five DBS associated with discordant results were available for confirmation at CDC. Four had non-reactive confirmatory test results that implied RT-1 false reactivity; one had ambiguous confirmatory test results which was non-reactive in further testing. Regardless of order and type of RT used, RTAs demonstrated high concordant results in the population surveyed. Additional laboratory testing on DBS following discordant results confirmed no infection. Implementing RTAs in the context of anonymous venue-based HIV testing could be an option when laboratory follow-up is not practicable.

ObjectiveTo determine the precision of new and established methods for estimating duration of HIV infection.DesignA retrospective analysis of HIV testing results from serial samples in commercially available panels, taking advantage of extensive testing previously conducted on 53 seroconverters.MethodsWe initially investigated four methods for estimating infection timing: method 1, 'Fiebig stages' based on test results from a single specimen; method 2, an updated '4th gen' method similar to Fiebig stages but using antigen/antibody tests in place of the p24 antigen test; method 3, modeling of 'viral ramp-up' dynamics using quantitative HIV-1 viral load data from antibody-negative specimens; and method 4, using detailed clinical testing history to define a plausible interval and best estimate of infection time. We then investigated a 'two-step method' using data from both methods 3 and 4, allowing for test results to have come from specimens collected on different days.ResultsFiebig and '4th gen' staging method estimates of time since detectable viremia had similar and modest correlation with observed data. Correlation of estimates from both new methods (3 and 4), and from a combination of these two ('two-step method') was markedly improved and variability significantly reduced when compared with Fiebig estimates on the same specimens.ConclusionThe new 'two-step' method more accurately estimates timing of infection and is intended to be generalizable to more situations in clinical medicine, research, and surveillance than previous methods. An online tool is now available that enables researchers/clinicians to input data related to method 4, and generate estimated dates of detectable infection.

Prompt determination of HIV infection status is critical during follow-up visits for patients taking pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication. Those who are uninfected can then continue safely taking PrEP, and those few who have acquired HIV infection can initiate an effective treatment regimen. However, a few recent cases have been reported of ambiguous HIV test results using common testing algorithms in PrEP patients. We review published reports of such cases and testing options that can be used to clarify true HIV status in these situations. In addition, we review the benefits and risks of 3 antiretroviral management options in these patients: (1) continue PrEP while conducting additional HIV tests, (2) initiate antiretroviral therapy for presumptive HIV infection while conducting confirmatory tests, or (3) discontinue PrEP to reassess HIV status after a brief antiretroviral-free interval. A clinical consultation resource is also provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]