Heterophilic interference in specimens yielding false-reactive results on the Abbott 4th generation ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay.

BACKGROUND: False-reactivity in HIV-negative specimens has been detected in HIV fourth-generation antigen/antibody or 'combo' assays which are able to detect both anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 antibodies and HIV-1 antigen. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize these specimens and determine the effect of heterophilic interference. STUDY DESIGN: Specimens previously testing as false-reactive on the Abbott ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab combo assay and re-tested on a different (Siemens ADVIA Centaur HIV Ag/Ab) assay. A subset of these specimens were also pre-treated with heterophilic blocking agents and re-tested on the Abbott assay. RESULTS: Here we report that 95% (252/264) of clinical specimens that were repeatedly reactive on the Abbott ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab combo assay (S/Co range, 0.94-678) were negative when re-tested on a different fourth generation HIV combo assay (Siemens ADVIA Centaur HIV Ag/Ab). All 264 samples were subsequently confirmed to be HIV negative. On a small subset (57) of specimens with available volume, pre-treatment with two different reagents (HBT; Heterophilic Blocking Tube, NABT; Non-Specific Blocking Tube) designed to block heterophilic antibody interference either eliminated (HBT) or reduced (NABT) the false reactivity when re-tested on the ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab combo assay. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the Abbott ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab combo assay can be prone to heterophilic antibody interference.

Comparative evaluation of the Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay and the Bio-Rad Multispot HIV-1/2 Rapid Test as an alternative differentiation assay for CLSI M53 algorithm-I.

INTRODUCTION: The CLSI-M53-A, Criteria for Laboratory Testing and Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection; Approved Guideline includes an algorithm in which samples that are reactive on a 4th generation EIA screen proceed to a supplemental assay that is able to confirm and differentiate between antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2. The recently CE-marked Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay was evaluated as an alternative to the FDA-approved Bio-Rad Multispot HIV-1/HIV-2 Rapid Test which has been previously validated for use in this new algorithm. METHODS: This study used reference samples submitted to the Canadian - NLHRS and samples from commercial sources. Data was tabulated in 2×2 tables for statistical analysis; sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, kappa and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The overall performance of the Geenius and Multispot was very high; sensitivity (100%, 100%), specificity (96.3%, 99.1%), positive (45.3, 181) and negative (0, 0) likelihood ratios respectively, high kappa (0.96) and low bias index (0.0068). The ability to differentiate HIV-1 (99.2%, 100%) and HIV-2 (98.1%, 98.1%) Ab was also very high. CONCLUSION: The Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay is a suitable alternative to the validated Multispot for use in the second stage of CLSI M53 algorithm-I. The Geenius has additional features including traceability and sample and cassette barcoding that improve the quality management/assurance of HIV testing. It is anticipated that the CLSI M53 guideline and assays such as the Geenius will reduce the number of indeterminate test results previously associated with the HIV-1 WB and improve the ability to differentiate HIV-2 infections.

Would CLSI M53-A have helped in the diagnosis of HIV in Canada? Results of the performance of Canadian laboratories participating in a recent NLHRS proficiency testing panel containing HIV-1 antigen positive (antibody negative) and HIV-2 samples.

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute recently published M53-A, Criteria for Laboratory Testing and Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection; Approved Guideline (2011), which includes a state of the art algorithm for identifying HIV-1 acute and HIV-2 infections. To assess the ability of Canadian laboratories to detect these sample types and the impact of M53-A, the National Laboratory for HIV Reference Services distributed a special proficiency testing panel. METHODS: HIVS425-2012Nov22 was sent to 42 laboratories across Canada. It contained one HIV negative sample (B), two HIV-1 positive samples (A and E), one HIV-2 positive sample (C) and one HIV-1/2 antibody negative-HIV-1 antigen positive sample (D). Data was collected and analyzed using DigitalPT; a standardized on-line tool. RESULTS: Forty-one laboratories returned results. Sample B (HIV negative) was identified by 95% of laboratories (39/41) and samples A and E (HIV-1 positive) by 98% (40/41). No laboratory identified sample C as HIV-2 positive, although 85% (35/41) detected reactivity prompting a referral for further testing. The remaining laboratories identified sample C as HIV-1 positive (4), indeterminate (1) or gave no final status (1). Sample D (HIV antibody negative-antigen positive) was correctly identified by two laboratories as HIV-1 antigen positive while 78% (32/41) detected reactivity, recommending further testing. One laboratory did not provide a final status. Alarmingly, six laboratories called this sample HIV negative. CONCLUSION: Although there is a high quality of HIV testing across Canada, introduction of the M53-A guideline would further improve the ability of laboratories to diagnose HIV-1 acute and HIV-2 infection.