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

Autor:	Guiraud V; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, Service de Virologie, Paris, France.; Sorbonne Université, INSERM U1136, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Paris, France., Bocobza J; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, Service de Virologie, Paris, France., Desmonet M; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, Service de Virologie, Paris, France., Damond F; AP-HP, University Hospital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Service de Virologie, Paris, France.; Université Paris Cité, IAME, INSERM, Paris, France., Plantier JC; Université de Rouen Normandie, Inserm UMR1311 DYNAMICURE, et CHU de Rouen, Laboratoire de Virologie associé au CNR du VIH, Rouen, France., Moreau G; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, Service de Virologie, Paris, France., Wirden M; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, Service de Virologie, Paris, France.; Sorbonne Université, INSERM U1136, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Paris, France., Stefic K; Université de Tours, UMR Inserm 1259, and CHU de Tours, Laboratoire associé au CNR du VIH, Tours, France., Barin F; Université de Tours, UMR Inserm 1259, and CHU de Tours, Laboratoire associé au CNR du VIH, Tours, France., Gautheret-Dejean A; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, Service de Virologie, Paris, France.; Université Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1139, 3PHM, Paris, France.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of clinical microbiology [J Clin Microbiol] 2023 Aug 23; Vol. 61 (8), pp. e0061923. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Jul 17.
DOI:	10.1128/jcm.00619-23
Abstrakt:	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. Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu