Klarkowski Derryck B, Wazome Joseph M, Lokuge Kamalini M, Shanks Leslie, Mills Clair F, O'Brien Daniel P
Public Health Department, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4351. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004351. Epub 2009 Feb 6.
Concerns about false-positive HIV results led to a review of testing procedures used in a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) HIV programme in Bukavu, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition to the WHO HIV rapid diagnostic test algorithm (RDT) (two positive RDTs alone for HIV diagnosis) used in voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) sites we evaluated in situ a practical field-based confirmation test against western blot WB. In addition, we aimed to determine the false-positive rate of the WHO two-test algorithm compared with our adapted protocol including confirmation testing, and whether weakly reactive compared with strongly reactive rapid test results were more likely to be false positives.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 2864 clients presenting to MSF VCT centres in Bukavu during January to May 2006 were tested using Determine HIV-1/2 and UniGold HIV rapid tests in parallel by nurse counsellors. Plasma samples on 229 clients confirmed as double RDT positive by laboratory retesting were further tested using both WB and the Orgenics Immunocomb Combfirm HIV confirmation test (OIC-HIV). Of these, 24 samples were negative or indeterminate by WB representing a false-positive rate of the WHO two-test algorithm of 10.5% (95%CI 6.6-15.2). 17 of the 229 samples were weakly positive on rapid testing and all were negative or indeterminate by WB. The false-positive rate fell to 3.3% (95%CI 1.3-6.7) when only strong-positive rapid test results were considered. Agreement between OIC-HIV and WB was 99.1% (95%CI 96.9-99.9%) with no false OIC-HIV positives if stringent criteria for positive OIC-HIV diagnoses were used.
The WHO HIV two-test diagnostic algorithm produced an unacceptably high level of false-positive diagnoses in our setting, especially if results were weakly positive. The most probable causes of the false-positive results were serological cross-reactivity or non-specific immune reactivity. Our findings show that the OIC-HIV confirmation test is practical and effective in field contexts. We propose that all double-positive HIV RDT samples should undergo further testing to confirm HIV seropositivity until the accuracy of the RDT testing algorithm has been established at programme level.
对艾滋病病毒检测结果出现假阳性的担忧促使人们对刚果民主共和国东部布卡武无国界医生组织艾滋病病毒项目所采用的检测程序进行审查。除了我们在自愿咨询检测(VCT)点所评估的世界卫生组织艾滋病病毒快速诊断检测算法(RDT)(仅两次RDT检测呈阳性用于艾滋病病毒诊断)外,我们还就地评估了一种针对蛋白质印迹法(WB)的实用现场确认检测方法。此外,我们旨在确定与我们包括确认检测的改良方案相比,世界卫生组织两次检测算法的假阳性率,以及与强反应性快速检测结果相比,弱反应性快速检测结果是否更有可能为假阳性。
方法/主要发现:2006年1月至5月期间,在布卡武无国界医生组织VCT中心就诊的2864名客户由护士咨询师同时使用Determine HIV-1/2和UniGold HIV快速检测进行检测。对经实验室重新检测确认为RDT双阳性的229名客户的血浆样本,进一步使用WB和Orgenics Immunocomb Combfirm HIV确认检测(OIC-HIV)进行检测。其中,24份样本经WB检测为阴性或不确定,这代表世界卫生组织两次检测算法的假阳性率为10.5%(95%置信区间6.6 - 15.2)。229份样本中有17份在快速检测时呈弱阳性,经WB检测均为阴性或不确定。仅考虑强阳性快速检测结果时,假阳性率降至3.3%(95%置信区间1.3 - 6.7)。如果采用严格的OIC-HIV阳性诊断标准,OIC-HIV与WB之间的一致性为99.1%(95%置信区间96.9 - 99.9%),且无OIC-HIV假阳性。
在我们的环境中,世界卫生组织艾滋病病毒两次检测诊断算法产生的假阳性诊断水平高得令人无法接受,尤其是当结果为弱阳性时。假阳性结果最可能的原因是血清学交叉反应或非特异性免疫反应。我们的研究结果表明,OIC-HIV确认检测在现场环境中实用且有效。我们建议,在项目层面确定RDT检测算法的准确性之前,所有艾滋病病毒RDT双阳性样本都应进行进一步检测以确认艾滋病病毒血清阳性。