Background Point-of-care (POC) rapid HIV tests have sensitivity during the “window period” comparable only to earliest generation EIAs. To date, it is unclear whether any POC test performs significantly better than others. Objective Compare abilities of POC tests to detect early infection in real time. Study Design Men who have sex with men (MSM) were recruited into a prospective, cross-sectional study at two HIV testing sites and a research clinic. Procedures compared four POC tests: one performed on oral fluids and three on fingerstick whole blood specimens. Specimens from participants with negative POC results were tested by EIA and pooled nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). McNemar’s exact tests compared numbers of HIV-infected participants detected. Results Between February 2010 and May 2013, 104 men tested HIV-positive during 2479 visits. Eighty-two participants had concordant reactive POC results, 3 participants had concordant non-reactive POC tests but reactive EIAs, and 8 participants had acute infection. Of 12 participants with discordant POC results, OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test performed on oral fluids identified fewer infections than OraQuick performed on fingerstick (p=.005), Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV Test (p=.01), and Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo (p=.005). Conclusions These data confirm that oral fluid POC testing detects fewer infections than other methods and is best reserved for circumstances precluding fingerstick or venipuncture. Regardless of specimen type, POC tests failed to identify many HIV-infected MSM in Seattle. In populations with high HIV incidence, the currently approved POC antibody tests are inadequate unless supplemented with p24 antigen tests or NAAT.

Background and Objective The Rapid Test Study was a real-time comparison of point-of-care (POC) HIV tests to determine their abilities to detect early HIV infection. Study Design Men and transgender persons reporting sex with men in the prior year were recruited at the Public Health – Seattle & King County STD Clinic, Gay City Health Project, and University of Washington Primary Infection Clinic. Study tests included the OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test performed on oral fluids and tests performed on fingerstick whole blood specimens including OraQuick, Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV Test, Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo, and INSTI HIV-1 Rapid Antibody Test. Specimens from subjects with negative results were sent for EIA and nucleic acid amplification testing. McNemar's exact tests compared the numbers of HIV-infected subjects detected. Results Between February 2010 and August 2014, there were 3438 study visits. Twenty-four subjects had discordant POC results with at least one reactive and one non-reactive test, including one subject with a reactive Determine p24 antigen. OraQuick performed on oral fluids identified fewer persons compared to all fingerstick tests. OraQuick performed on fingerstick whole blood detected fewer persons compared to the Determine Combo antibody component (p=.008) and Combo overall (p=.004), and there was a trend when compared to INSTI (p=.06). The Determine Combo specificity was 98.99%. Conclusions As reported by others, Determine Combo underperforms compared to laboratory-based testing, but it did detect one acute infection. If these results are validated, the specificity of Determine Combo may limit its usefulness in populations with lower HIV incidence.

This version may be subject to change during the production process.

There has been increasing recognition of the importance of diagnosing individuals during the earliest stages of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Sera from individuals referred to a primary HIV infection research program were screened using the IgG-sensitive Vironostika HIV-1 Microelisa System, IgG/IgM-sensitive GS HIV-1/HIV-2 Plus O antibody enzyme immunoassay (EIA), or Abbott ARCHITECT HIV antigen (Ag)/antibody (Ab) Combo assay and confirmed by the Bio-Rad Multispot and Western blot. A subset of participants was co-enrolled in a study designed to compare the ability of point-of-care tests to detect early infection. We calculated time within primary infection laboratory stages using actual observed transitions and with an expectation-maximization algorithm. Three hundred and sixty participants contributed data to this analysis. Of 123 persons referred with EIA-negative/RNA-positive test results (Fiebig stage I-II) or for concern for symptoms, 24 (20%) were still in stages I-II, and 99 (80%) were in stages III or later at their screening visit. Participants were estimated to spend a median of 13.5 days in stages I and II, 2.3 days in stage III, and 7.8 days in stage IV. OraQuick performed on oral fluids detected 53% of 17 participants in stage V. The durations of stages we observed are consistent with previous publications. Most persons referred for research no longer had acute infection at their first visit. Programs wishing to identify persons in the very earliest stages of infection need to expedite referrals or develop targeted screening programs.