No abstract

BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the roles of the plasma immune activation biomarkers neopterin and soluble CD14 (sCD14) in the indirect assessment of the immune activation status of patients with the indeterminate HIV-1 (IHIV-1) pattern and a true HIV-1-positive infection (PCG).MethodsThis cross-sectional and descriptive study included eighty-eight patients with the IHIV-1 pattern, 100 patients in the PCG, and 100 people in a healthy control group (HCG). Neopterin and sCD14 levels were determined by competitive and sandwich ELISA methods, respectively.ResultsMean neopterin and sCD14 levels among those with the IHIV-1 pattern were significantly lower than among the PCG (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), but they were similiar to those in the HCG (p = 0.57 and p = 0.66, respectively. Mean neopterin and sCD14 levels among the PCG were found to be significantly higher than among those with the IHIV-1 pattern (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively) and among those in the HCG (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Neopterin did not have adequate predictive value for identifying those in the PCG (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.534; 95% CI, 0.463–0.605; p = 0.4256); sCD14 also had poor predictive value but high specificity (100%) for identifying those in the PCG (AUC = 0.627; 95% CI, 0.556–0.694; p = 0.0036).ConclusionsWhile low levels of these two biomarkers were detected among those with the IHIV-1 pattern, they were found in high levels among those in the PCG. These two markers obviously cannot be used as a sceening test because they have low sensitivies. Taken together, we suggest that neopterin and sCD14 may be helpful because they both have high specificity (92%-100%) as indirect non-specific markers for predicting the immune activation status of individuals, whether or not they have true positive HIV-1.

No abstract

Background: The use of conventional (serologically based) HIV 1/2 diagnostic algorithms has become controversial in recent years. Objectives: Sera from patients who underwent verification tests were evaluated because repeated ELISA-reactive results demonstrated a HIV1+HIV2 positive band pattern. Methods:The line immunoassay (LIA) test was used for repeated HIV enzyme immunoassays (EIA)-reactive sera in patients at three centers. The Bio-Rad Geenius™ HIV 1/2 and the HIV-1 RNA tests were used. HIV-1 and RNA HIV-2 were investigated using PCR. Results: LIA was used to evaluate 3,224 out of 10,591 samples with repeated ELISA reactivity (30%). We found that 32 (1%) of the sera, along with HIV1 bands and HIV2 gp36 bands, were positive. Only 28 of the 32 verified serum samples with gp36 bands were repeated, and no gp36 band positivity was detected using the Bio-Rad Geenius™ HIV-1/2 confirmatory assay in these serum samples. The HIV-2 proviral DNAs were also negative. Therefore, we excluded the possibility of HIV1+2 co-infection. All samples from the 32 patients were positive for HIV-1 RNA. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need to exclude confirmatory tests like the LIA test from the current diagnostic HIV algorithm and replace it with rapid HIV-1 and HIV-2 confirmatory immunochromotographic tests.