ABSTRACT
Immunoblots remain the gold standard for HIV-1/HIV-2 infection confirmation. However, their ability to differentiate HIV-1 from HIV-2 infection on an antigenically diversified HIV-1 and HIV-2 panel remain uncommon. We performed a multicenter study on 116 serum samples accounting for most of the diversity of HIV-1 (9 different subtypes in group M, 17 circulating recombinant forms (CRFs), and 3 group O) and HIV-2 (groups A and B), evaluating seven confirmatory assays (six commercially available assays and one in-house assay) with genotyping as the reference. The assays were INNO-LIA HIV I/II score, HIV-2 blot 1.2, HIV blot 2.2, New Lav blot I and II, Geenius, and an in-house serotyping enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Among the HIV-1 samples, INNO-LIA, HIV blot 2.2, New Lav blot I, Geenius, and serotyping had comparable high sensitivities, from 98% to 100%, whereas HIV-2 blot 1.2 and New Lav blot II had high rates of "undetermined" results (85% and 95%, respectively). HIV-2 blot 1.2 and New Lav blot II misclassified 7% and 5% of HIV-1 samples as HIV-2, respectively, and HIV-2 blot 1.2 had an 8% false-negative rate. Among the HIV-2 samples, INNO-LIA, New Lav blot II, HIV-2 blot 1.2, and serotyping had high sensitivities, from 96% to 100%. HIV blot 2.2 misclassified 17% of HIV-2 samples as HIV-1/HIV-2 dual infections. New Lav blot I misclassified 19% of HIV-2 samples as HIV-1 with a high (81%) undetermined rate, and Geenius misclassified 2% as HIV-1 and 7% as untypeable HIV positive. For HIV-1/HIV-2 dual infection, the results were less sensitive, with at most 87.5% for INNO-LIA and Geenius and 75% for HIV blot 2.2 and serotyping. Overall, confirmatory assays remain useful for most cases, with the exception of HIV-1/HIV-2 dual-infection suspicion.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections , HIV Seropositivity , HIV-1 , Humans , HIV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV AntibodiesABSTRACT
Major differences exist between HIV-1 and HIV-2 in terms of epidemiology, pathogenicity, sensitivity to antiretrovirals. Determining the type of HIV infecting a patient is essential for management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of simple/rapid tests to differentiate between HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 infections. We analyzed 116 samples from patients infected with HIV-1 (n = 61), HIV-2 (n = 47), or HIV-1+HIV-2 (n = 8) at the chronic stage of infection. Each sample was tested with SD Bioline HIV-1/2 3.0, ImmunoFlow HIV1-HIV2, ImmunoFlow HIV1-HIV2 (WB), Genie III HIV-1/HIV-2, ImmunoComb HIV1&2 BiSpot. HIV-1, or HIV-2 single infection was identified with a sensitivity ranging from 90% to 100%. The ability to detect dual infection was less sensitive (12.5-100%). SD Bioline HIV-1/2 3.0, ImmunoFlow HIV1-HIV2, and Genie III were unable to detect HIV-1 group O infection in one, one and two cases, respectively. The specificity of detection of HIV-1, HIV-2, or HIV-1+HIV-2 antibodies differed greatly (36-100%). ImmunoComb BiSpot had the highest sensitivity values (99-100% for HIV-1, 98% for HIV-2, and 75-87.5% for dual infection) and specificity values (94-100% for HIV-1, 100% for HIV-2, and 97-100% for dual infection). In conclusion, this study showed that no single rapid test had a perfect sensitivity/specificity ratio, particularly in the case of the double infections.
