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.
Background
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.”