ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the false-positive and false-negative rates of a 4th-generation human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) assay, the Abbott ARCHITECT, vs 2 HIV 3rd-generation assays, the Siemens Centaur and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros. METHODS: We examined 123 patient specimens. In the first phase of the study, we compared 99 specimens that had a positive screening result via the 3rd-generation Vitros assay (10 positive, 82 negative, and 7 indeterminate via confirmatory immunofluorescent assay [IFA]/Western blot [WB] testing). In the second phase, we assessed 24 HIV-1 RNA-positive (positive result via the nuclear acid amplification test [NAAT] and negative/indeterminate results via the WB test) specimens harboring acute HIV infection. RESULTS: The 4th-generation ARCHITECT assay yielded fewer false-positive results (n = 2) than the 3rd-generation Centaur (n = 9; P = .02) and Vitros (n = 82; P <.001) assays. One confirmed positive case had a false-negative result via the Centaur assay. When specimens from the 24 patients with acute HIV-1 infection were tested, the ARCHITECT assay yielded fewer false-negative results (n = 5) than the Centaur (n = 10) (P = .13) and the other 3rd-generation tests (n = 16) (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the 4th-generation ARCHITECT HIV assay yields fewer false-positive and false-negative results than the 3rd-generation HIV assays we tested.
