RESUMO
Data regarding the efficacy of Rapid HIV tests (RHTs) in detecting non-B subtype HIV-1 are limited. We evaluated the sensitivity of the INSTI® test for the detection of HIV-1 antibodies for the diagnosis of HIV-1 non-B subtypes and recombinant variants. We identified adults with HIV-1 infection due to non-B subtypes and recombinant variants. The participants were re-tested with INSTI® test. We included 258 patients. Overall, the INSTI® test sensitivity was 98.4% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9%). For the major CRF_02AG subtype, the sensitivity was 99.0% (95%CI: 97.1-100%). The HIV INSTI® test is reliable for the detection of various non-B HIV-1 antibodies.
Assuntos
Genótipo , Anticorpos Anti-HIV/sangue , Infecções por HIV/diagnóstico , HIV-1/imunologia , HIV-1/isolamento & purificação , Recombinação Genética , Testes Sorológicos/métodos , Adulto , Feminino , HIV-1/classificação , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
We compared the coreceptor tropism-predicting performance of a specific genotypic algorithm for HIV-1 subtype D and that of the geno2pheno algorithm with different cutoffs. The D-specific algorithm and geno2pheno with a false-positivity rate cutoff of 2.5% had the same concordance with the phenotypic determination. The geno2pheno algorithm with a false-positivity rate cutoff of 2.5%, more sensitive but slightly less specific, seems to be an appropriate alternative.
Assuntos
Algoritmos , Biologia Computacional/métodos , HIV-1/genética , HIV-1/fisiologia , Receptores de HIV/metabolismo , Tropismo Viral , Ligação Viral , Genótipo , Humanos , Dados de Sequência Molecular , RNA Viral/genética , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Análise de Sequência de DNARESUMO
BACKGROUND: eMAG™ (bioMerieux) is a new nucleic acid extraction platform based on magnetic silica technology, like its predecessor, NucliSENS® easyMAG® (bioMerieux). Using the same reagents and disposables, eMAG™ adds further automation, allowing simultaneous extraction of 48 samples directly from primary tubes, and distribution of nucleic acid extracts on PCR strips or in tubes at the end of the extraction process. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of eMAG™ and easyMAG® on various clinical specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Respiratory (n=199), whole blood (n=50), plasma (n=25) and urine (n=25) specimens were extracted in parallel on both platforms. Both qualitative (respiratory virus, cell control, CMV, EBV, HHV6 and BKV detection) and quantitative (respiratory virus and cell control cycle thresolds, and CMV, EBV, HHV6 and BKV viral loads) results were compared. RESULTS: Detection of qualitative targets showed good agreement, ranging from 84.6% for whole blood to 95.9% for respiratory specimens. Correlations between quantitative results were good, with R2 ranging from 0.802 to 0.995. Quantitative results showed average overall differences below 0.10 log10 copies/mL between eMAG™ and easyMAG®. CONCLUSIONS: The two platforms showed comparable performance on the types of clinical specimen tested. With higher automation and throughput than easyMAG®, the eMAG™ platform is likely to be advantageous for laboratories performing a large number of molecular analyses.