More evidence that rapid ‘combination’ test often fails to detect acute HIV infection

Roger Pebody
Published: 23 October 2012

A rapid, point-of-care test, which aims to reduce the ‘window period’ through the detection of both antibodies and p24 antigen has poor performance in a UK clinical setting, Clifford Bryn Jones and colleagues report in the advance online edition of the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

These data appear to confirm previous reports that while the Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo can reliably identify people with established HIV infection, it delivers false negative results to most people who have very recent HIV infection.


Rapid diagnostic tests, which can be operated at the point-of-care by doctors or nurses, offer numerous advantages over conventional laboratory tests. Such devices are essential in resource-limited settings where laboratories are inaccessible or unavailable. Furthermore, as patients do not need to come back for their results on another day, far more people receive their results.

However almost all rapid tests only detect HIV antibodies, which are only detectable approximately one month after infection. In contrast, tests conducted in a laboratory may also be able to detect p24 antigen or HIV RNA, both of which are detectable earlier than this. These tests therefore shorten the ‘window period’.

Introduced in 2009, the Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo is the only rapid test which combines detection of antibodies and p24 antigen.

However, earlier this year, researchers working in Malawi reported that the test’s actual performance in relation to recent infections was inadequate, echoing a smaller UK study published the previous year.

New data

Clinicians in London compared the testing results from three different types of HIV test:

  • a combination laboratory test that looks for both antibodies and p24 antigen (Abbott Architect),
  • an antibody-only rapid test  (Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab), and
  • the combination rapid test that looks for both antibodies and p24 antigen (Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo).

Samples were taken from 985 high-risk individuals seeking testing at St Mary’s Hospital. The vast majority were men who have sex with men (817), with most others coming from high-prevalence countries (153).

Using the laboratory test as a benchmark, 22 people were HIV positive (2.3% prevalence). Two of these individuals were only identified by the p24 antigen part of the laboratory test – they were not yet positive for antibodies because they had very recent infection, although they did not have any seroconversion symptoms.

As expected, the antibody-only rapid test identified the 20 HIV-positive people with antibodies, but not the two individuals who only had p24 antigen.

However, the fourth-generation rapid test also failed to identify those two individuals with p24 antigen only (very recent infection), and only diagnosed 19 of the 22 HIV-positive people. Moreover, three additional individuals tested positive for p24 antigen with the rapid test, but their results were not confirmed by the more reliable laboratory testing.

The researchers calculate the sensitivity of the combination rapid test to be 90.5% (95% confidence interval 69.6% - 98.8%). A test’s sensitivity refers to its ability to correctly diagnose people with infection.

On the other hand, its specificity was more acceptable at 99.8% (95% confidence interval 99.2% - 99.9%). A test’s specificity refers to its ability to correctly deliver negative results.

As in the previous report from Malawi, it appears that the antibody part of the rapid test does have excellent sensitivity and specificity, but that the p24 antigen part – its unique selling point – performs poorly.

Moreover, French researchers also report in the same journal that the test is unable to detect p24 consistently, especially with non-B subtypes such as F, G, H, J, O and P, and never with HIV-2.

Commenting on these new data, the investigators behind the Malawi study say that while the performance of this test is disappointing, the goal of identifying people during acute infection is important. “Investigators and industry should work together towards designing sensitive and specific diagnostics capable of detecting acute HIV infection at the point of care. These diagnostics must then be field tested before clinical use, regardless of the degree of difficulty involved.”


Jones CB et al. Clinical Evaluation of the Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo test. Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/infdis/jis628, 2012.

Laperche S et al. Failures in the detection of HIV p24 antigen with Determine® HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo rapid test. Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/infdis/jis616, 2012.

Rosenberg NE et al. Point-of-Care Diagnostics for Acute HIV Infection: An Important Public Health Priority. Journal of Infectious Diseases, doi:10.1093/infdis/jis618, 2012.

Tell us why you visited aidsmap today

Could you help us by answering three questions on why you’ve visited aidsmap today?

You can close this questionnaire and come back to it later. Just click on the pink circle.

What prompted you to visit aidsmap today?

What exactly are you looking for? What specific questions do you need answered?

Have you found what you were looking for?


Thank you for your feedback

Thank you very much for taking time to fill in this questionnaire. NAM really values your feedback. It helps make the information we provide better.

If you have any other comments on the content of this website, we would be interested to hear from you. Please email

Community Consensus Statement on Access to HIV Treatment and its Use for Prevention

Together, we can make it happen

We can end HIV soon if people have equal access to HIV drugs as treatment and as PrEP, and have free choice over whether to take them.

Launched today, the Community Consensus Statement is a basic set of principles aimed at making sure that happens.

The Community Consensus Statement is a joint initiative of AVAC, EATG, MSMGF, GNP+, HIV i-Base, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, ITPC and NAM/aidsmap

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.

NAM’s information is intended to support, rather than replace, consultation with a healthcare professional. Talk to your doctor or another member of your healthcare team for advice tailored to your situation.