Use of the Bio-Rad Geenius HIV-1/2 supplemental assay for the testing of oral fluids for the presence of HIV antibody.

There is currently an absence of products which are cleared by the FDA to provide supplemental testing for oral fluid for HIV antibody. We created a procedure for the use of the BioRad Geenius HIV-1/2 as a supplemental antibody test for oral fluid specimens. The modified procedure was evaluated for its ability to detect HIV-1 antibody in oral fluid in specimens that were found to be repeatedly reactive for HIV-1 antibody by way of the Avioq HIV-1 enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Evaluated were oral fluid specimens analyzed at a local public health laboratory which were stored frozen and oral fluid specimens collected prospectively. Prospectively collected specimens were from patients whose HIV status was subsequently assessed through blood-based testing. For retrospective specimens found repeatedly EIA reactive, and positive by Western blot, the modified Geenius was found positive in 37/38 instances (97.4 %). Those specimens with a mean EIA signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) greater than 3.00 were found to be positive by Geenius in 34/34 (100 %) of instances. For specimens found repeated reactive by EIA and positive by Western blot with mean S/CO less than or equal to 3.00, the Geenius was positive in 4/5 instances (80 %) of instances. For prospectively collected specimens, the Geenius accurately confirmed infection in 22/24 cases (92 %) while prospective specimens found repeatedly reactive by EIA without supplemental Geenius testing were confirmed positive in 29/37 instances (78 %). A modified usage of the Geenius HIV-1/2 Supplemental Assay antibody test may provide utility in the supplementation of testing of oral fluid for the presence of HIV-1 antibody.

Evaluation of indirect fluorescent antibody assays compared to rapid influenza diagnostic tests for the detection of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) pdm09.

Performance of indirect fluorescent antibody (IFA) assays and rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT) during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was evaluated, along with the relative effects of age and illness severity on test accuracy. Clinicians and laboratories submitted specimens on patients with respiratory illness to public health from April to mid October 2009 for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing as part of pandemic H1N1 surveillance efforts in Orange County, CA; IFA and RIDT were performed in clinical settings. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain, now officially named influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, were calculated for 638 specimens. Overall, approximately 30% of IFA tests and RIDTs tested by PCR were falsely negative (sensitivity 71% and 69%, respectively). Sensitivity of RIDT ranged from 45% to 84% depending on severity and age of patients. In hospitalized children, sensitivity of IFA (75%) was similar to RIDT (84%). Specificity of tests performed on hospitalized children was 94% for IFA and 80% for RIDT. Overall sensitivity of RIDT in this study was comparable to previously published studies on pandemic H1N1 influenza and sensitivity of IFA was similar to what has been reported in children for seasonal influenza. Both diagnostic tests produced a high number of false negatives and should not be used to rule out influenza infection.