Advanced

Performance of Bio-Rad HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay in HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dually reactive patients - comparison with INNO-LIA and immunocomb discriminatory assays

Lindman, Jacob LU ; Hønge, B. L.; Kjerulff, Bertram; Medina, Candida; da Silva, Zacarias José; Erikstrup, Christian; Norrgren, Hans LU and Månsson, Fredrik LU (2019) In Journal of Virological Methods 268. p.42-47
Abstract

Background: Being able to discriminate between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dual infection is imperative for the appropriate selection of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in regions with high HIV-2 endemicity. Objectives: To evaluate Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay against INNO-LIA HIV 1/2 Score and ImmunoComb HIV 1/2 BiSpot with an emphasis towards ability to discriminate between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dual infection. Material and Methods: 131 samples from ART naïve HIV infected patients in Guinea-Bissau were selected retrospectively and tested with Geenius, INNO-LIA and Immunocomb. HIV-1/2 RNA were measured in all samples and HIV-1/2 DNA in 59 samples. Results: The Geenius reader typed 62 samples as HIV-1 reactive, 37 samples as... (More)

Background: Being able to discriminate between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dual infection is imperative for the appropriate selection of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in regions with high HIV-2 endemicity. Objectives: To evaluate Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay against INNO-LIA HIV 1/2 Score and ImmunoComb HIV 1/2 BiSpot with an emphasis towards ability to discriminate between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dual infection. Material and Methods: 131 samples from ART naïve HIV infected patients in Guinea-Bissau were selected retrospectively and tested with Geenius, INNO-LIA and Immunocomb. HIV-1/2 RNA were measured in all samples and HIV-1/2 DNA in 59 samples. Results: The Geenius reader typed 62 samples as HIV-1 reactive, 37 samples as HIV-2 reactive and 32 samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive. Geenius manual reading classified 10% more samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive (n = 35). INNO-LIA typed 63 samples as HIV-1 reactive, 36 samples as HIV-2 reactive and 32 samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive while Immunocomb classified a large proportion of samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive (n = 45). The measurement of agreement of the Geenius reader compared with INNO-LIA and Immunocomb was 92.4% and 84.0% respectively while the measurement of agreement of Geenius manual reading compared with INNO-LIA and Immuncomb was 93.1% and 89.3% respectively. Conclusions: Geenius has similar performance characteristics as INNO-LIA, and performs considerably better than Immunocomb, for differentiating between HIV types. This is especially true when using the Geenius reader while manual reading of the Geenius assay seemed to overestimate the numbers of HIV-1/2 dually reactive samples.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Differentiation, Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay, HIV-1, HIV-2, INNO-LIA
in
Journal of Virological Methods
volume
268
pages
6 pages
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • scopus:85063113986
ISSN
0166-0934
DOI
10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.03.005
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
b7ccca82-351b-4496-a81f-11028a6aabdb
date added to LUP
2019-03-27 12:44:59
date last changed
2019-04-23 04:47:27
@article{b7ccca82-351b-4496-a81f-11028a6aabdb,
  abstract     = {<p>Background: Being able to discriminate between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dual infection is imperative for the appropriate selection of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in regions with high HIV-2 endemicity. Objectives: To evaluate Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay against INNO-LIA HIV 1/2 Score and ImmunoComb HIV 1/2 BiSpot with an emphasis towards ability to discriminate between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dual infection. Material and Methods: 131 samples from ART naïve HIV infected patients in Guinea-Bissau were selected retrospectively and tested with Geenius, INNO-LIA and Immunocomb. HIV-1/2 RNA were measured in all samples and HIV-1/2 DNA in 59 samples. Results: The Geenius reader typed 62 samples as HIV-1 reactive, 37 samples as HIV-2 reactive and 32 samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive. Geenius manual reading classified 10% more samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive (n = 35). INNO-LIA typed 63 samples as HIV-1 reactive, 36 samples as HIV-2 reactive and 32 samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive while Immunocomb classified a large proportion of samples as HIV-1/2 dually reactive (n = 45). The measurement of agreement of the Geenius reader compared with INNO-LIA and Immunocomb was 92.4% and 84.0% respectively while the measurement of agreement of Geenius manual reading compared with INNO-LIA and Immuncomb was 93.1% and 89.3% respectively. Conclusions: Geenius has similar performance characteristics as INNO-LIA, and performs considerably better than Immunocomb, for differentiating between HIV types. This is especially true when using the Geenius reader while manual reading of the Geenius assay seemed to overestimate the numbers of HIV-1/2 dually reactive samples.</p>},
  author       = {Lindman, Jacob and Hønge, B. L. and Kjerulff, Bertram and Medina, Candida and da Silva, Zacarias José and Erikstrup, Christian and Norrgren, Hans and Månsson, Fredrik},
  issn         = {0166-0934},
  keyword      = {Differentiation,Geenius HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay,HIV-1,HIV-2,INNO-LIA},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {42--47},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Journal of Virological Methods},
  title        = {Performance of Bio-Rad HIV-1/2 Confirmatory Assay in HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1/2 dually reactive patients - comparison with INNO-LIA and immunocomb discriminatory assays},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2019.03.005},
  volume       = {268},
  year         = {2019},
}