Azithromycin versus Doxycycline for Urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis Infection.

BACKGROUND: Urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection remains prevalent and causes substantial reproductive morbidity. Recent studies have raised concern about the efficacy of azithromycin for the treatment of chlamydia infection. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial comparing oral azithromycin with doxycycline for the treatment of urogenital chlamydia infection among adolescents in youth correctional facilities, to evaluate the noninferiority of azithromycin (1 g in one dose) to doxycycline (100 mg twice daily for 7 days). The treatment was directly observed. The primary end point was treatment failure at 28 days after treatment initiation, with treatment failure determined on the basis of nucleic acid amplification testing, sexual history, and outer membrane protein A (OmpA) genotyping of C. trachomatis strains. RESULTS: Among the 567 participants enrolled, 284 were randomly assigned to receive azithromycin, and 283 were randomly assigned to receive doxycycline. A total of 155 participants in each treatment group (65% male) made up the per-protocol population. There were no treatment failures in the doxycycline group. In the azithromycin group, treatment failure occurred in 5 participants (3.2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.4 to 7.4%). The observed difference in failure rates between the treatment groups was 3.2 percentage points, with an upper boundary of the 90% confidence interval of 5.9 percentage points, which exceeded the prespecified absolute 5-percentage-point cutoff for establishing the noninferiority of azithromycin. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a closed population receiving directly observed treatment for urogenital chlamydia infection, the efficacy of azithromycin was 97%, and the efficacy of doxycycline was 100%. The noninferiority of azithromycin was not established in this setting. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00980148.).

Evaluation of the performance characteristics of 6 rapid HIV antibody tests.

BACKGROUND: Since 2002, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 6 rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests for use in the United States. To date, there has been no direct comparison of the performance of all 6 tests. METHODS: Persons known to be HIV-infected and persons who sought HIV testing at 2 clinical sites in Los Angeles, California, were recruited for evaluation of 6 rapid HIV tests with whole blood, oral fluid, serum, and plasma specimens. Sensitivity and specificity of the rapid tests were compared with viral lysate and immunoglobulin (Ig) M-sensitive peptide HIV enzyme immunoassays (EIAs). RESULTS: A total of 6282 specimens were tested. Sensitivity was >95% and specificity was >99% for all rapid tests. Compared with the IgM-sensitive EIA, rapid tests gave false-negative results with an additional 2-5 specimens. All rapid tests had statistically equivalent performance characteristics, based on overlapping confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity, compared with either conventional EIA. CONCLUSIONS: All 6 rapid tests have high sensitivity and specificity, compared with that of conventional EIAs. Because performance was similar for all tests and specimen types, other characteristics, such as convenience, time to result, shelf life, and cost will likely be determining factors for selection of a rapid HIV screening test for a specific application.

Strategies used in the detection of acute/early HIV infections. The NIMH Multisite Acute HIV Infection Study: I.

Acute/early HIV infection plays a critical role in onward HIV transmission. Detection of HIV infections during this period provides an important early opportunity to offer interventions which may prevent further transmission. In six US cities, persons with acute/early HIV infection were identified using either HIV RNA testing of pooled sera from persons screened HIV antibody negative or through clinical referral of persons with acute or early infections. Fifty-one cases were identified and 34 (68%) were enrolled into the study; 28 (82%) were acute infections and 6 (18%) were early infections. Of those enrolled, 13 (38%) were identified through HIV pooled testing of 7,633 HIV antibody negative sera and 21 (62%) through referral. Both strategies identified cases that would have been missed under current HIV testing and counseling protocols. Efforts to identify newly infected persons should target specific populations and geographic areas based on knowledge of the local epidemiology of incident infections.

Performance of an oral fluid rapid HIV-1/2 test: experience from four CDC studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of a rapid HIV antibody test used with whole blood and oral fluid in settings where the test is likely to be used. DESIGN: In four separate studies, we compared the accuracy of the rapid test performed on whole blood and oral fluid specimens with the results of conventional HIV tests. METHODS: Oral fluid and whole blood from persons of unknown HIV status recruited from clinics, labor and delivery units, and outreach venues were tested with the OraQuick Advance rapid HIV-1/2 antibody test. Sensitivity and specificity were compared with results of the enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and Western blot algorithm used by the study sites. RESULTS: OraQuick sensitivity was 99.7% with whole blood and 99.1% with oral fluid from 327 persons who were HIV antibody positive by the conventional algorithm. OraQuick specificity was 99.9% with whole blood and 99.6% with oral fluid from 12 010 HIV-negative persons; EIA specificity was 99.7%. A cluster of 16 false-positive oral fluid tests occurred in one study, in which specificity was lower (99.0%) than in the other three studies (99.6-99.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In diverse settings in four studies, the OraQuick test showed high sensitivity and specificity for HIV antibody in whole blood and oral fluid specimens. Slightly more false-positive and false-negative results occurred with oral fluid than with whole blood, but performance with both specimen types was similar to, or better than, that of conventional EIAs.

Client satisfaction with rapid HIV testing: comparison between an urban sexually transmitted disease clinic and a community-based testing center.

Rapid HIV testing allows same-day results, increasing the number of persons who learn their HIV status. Understanding how clients in different settings perceive rapid testing may increase acceptance of this technology. From June 1999 to August 2001 we interviewed 256 clients at a publicly funded urban sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic and 1201 clients at a community- based HIV counseling, testing, and referral center (Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center; LAGLC) about their posttest satisfaction with rapid HIV testing. HIV prevalence was 3.9% at the STD clinic and 5.3% at the LAGLC. In multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, history of STDs, self-perceived HIV risk, prior HIV test and HIV testing results, clients at the STD clinics (versus LAGLC) were more likely to find testing stressful (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.75, 95% confidence limits [CL]: 1.27, 2.42) and feel that they received their results too quickly (AOR: 2.05, 95% CL: 1.39, 3.03). Latinos (versus whites) were more likely to report that they received their results too quickly (AOR: 4.99, 95% CL: 3.48, 7.14) and that it would be better to wait a week for HIV test results (AOR: 2.48, 95% CL: 1.51, 4.09). Further research may elucidate the reasons why some groups prefer to wait for results, and enable policymakers to better design strategies to reach high-risk groups with rapid HIV testing.

Performance of an alternative laboratory-based algorithm for HIV diagnosis in a high-risk population.

BACKGROUND: An immunoassay (IA) followed by Western blot (WB) or immunofluorescence assay has been the primary algorithm used to provide laboratory confirmation of the diagnosis of HIV infection in the US for more than 20 years. Recently, an alternative diagnostic algorithm was proposed to more accurately identify early HIV-1 infection and differentiate between HIV-1 and HIV-2 infection. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate a sequential alternative algorithm in which reactive IAs are followed by a rapid HIV test and, if negative, a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). STUDY DESIGN: Specimens from high-risk persons were tested with 4 HIV IAs, 6 rapid HIV tests and NAAT (APTIMA(®)), which are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. IAs were repeated in duplicate if specimen volumes were sufficient. The performance of the alternative algorithm was compared to HIV WB and NAAT. RESULTS: The original study classified 377 specimens as HIV-positive and 3070 as HIV-negative. All 4 IAs correctly identified >99.5% of HIV-positive specimens and, on initial screening, >95.8% of HIV-negative specimens. When repeated, specificity of IAs improved to >99%. Between 6.7% and 12.4% of IA-repeatedly reactive specimens required APTIMA for resolution. The alternative algorithm led to the correct classification of all IA-reactive specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of screening IA and rapid test used, the alternative algorithm correctly classified the infection status of all persons with reactive screening IA results. Few specimens required NAAT for resolution, and the proportion requiring NAAT was lower when repeat IA test results were considered.

Detecting acute human immunodeficiency virus infection using 3 different screening immunoassays and nucleic acid amplification testing for human immunodeficiency virus RNA, 2006-2008.

BACKGROUND: The yield of nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) after routine screening for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody to detect acute HIV infection (AHI) may vary with different HIV-antibody assays. METHODS: From April 24, 2006, through March 28, 2008, patients underwent routine HIV-antibody screening using a first-generation assay at 14 county sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics and 1 community clinic serving homosexual patients in Los Angeles; using a second-generation rapid test at 3 municipal STD clinics in New York; and using a third-generation assay at 80 public health clinics in Florida. To identify AHI, seronegative specimens were pooled for NAAT, followed by individual NAAT of specimens with positive findings. All AHI samples screened by first- and second-generation assays also underwent third-generation testing. RESULTS: We screened 37 012 persons using NAAT after first-generation testing; 35 AHIs were identified, increasing HIV case detection by 8.2%. After a second-generation rapid test, 6547 persons underwent NAAT; 7 AHIs were identified, increasing HIV case detection by 24.1%. After third-generation testing, 54 948 persons underwent NAAT; 12 AHI cases were identified, increasing HIV case detection by 1.4%. Overall, pooled NAAT after negative third-generation test results detected 26 AHI cases, increasing HIV case detection by 2.2%. Most of the AHI cases from Los Angeles (26 of 35 [74%]) were identified at the community clinic where NAAT after third-generation testing increased HIV case detection by 11.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled NAAT after third-generation testing increases HIV case detection, especially in venues of high HIV seropositivity. Therefore, targeted AHI screening using pooled NAAT after third-generation testing may be most effective, warranting a cost-benefit analysis.