Are Confirmatory Assays Reliable for HIV-1/HIV-2 Infection Differentiation? A Multicenter Study.

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.

Quantitation of human herpesvirus-6A, -6B and -7 DNAs in whole blood, mononuclear and polymorphonuclear cell fractions from healthy blood donors.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of human herpesvirus-6A (HHV-6A), -6B (HHV-6B) or -7 (HHV-7) infections is often based on the measure of viral load in blood. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to define usual values of HHV-6A, HHV-6B and HHV-7 loads in blood fractions (whole blood [WB], mononuclear cells [PBMCs], polymorphonuclear leukocytes [PMNLs]) of blood donors. STUDY DESIGN: HHV-6A, HHV-6B and -7 DNAs were quantitated using real-time PCR assays in WB, PBMCs and PMNLs separated on Ficoll or dextran gradients, respectively, for 200 blood donors. Viral loads were expressed as the number of viral genomic copies per million cells (Cop/M) for all fractions, and also per milliliter for WB. RESULTS: HHV-6B DNA was rarely detected in WB (8%), PBMCs (16.5%), and PMNLs (10.5%), HHV-6A was never detected, whereas HHV-7 DNA was often present in WB (51.5%), PBMCs (62%) and PMNLs (51.5%). Median loads were low with 81 Cop/M in WB, 62 Cop/M in PBMCs and 34.5 Cop/M in PMNLs for HHV-6B, and 129 Cop/M in WB, 225 Cop/M in PBMCs and 62 Cop/M in PMNLs for HHV-7. Viral load expression per million cells and per mL were equivalent. One subject had chromosomally integrated HHV-6 with high viral loads ranging from 2.23×10(6) to 3.21×10(6) Cop/M in all compartments and plasma. CONCLUSIONS: These results allow to propose viral load in WB as a sensitive and suitable marker, with values for healthy subjects at approximately 100 Cop/M for both viruses. The prevalence of chromosomally integrated HHV-6 was 0.5%.