In a study of specimens from Seattle-area MSM, a rapid antibody test detected HIV infection less well than did either enzyme immunoassay antibody testing or nucleic-acid amplification testing.
The estimated 21% of HIV-infected people in the U.S. who are unaware of their serostatus may account for up to 50% of new infections. In populations with high HIV incidence, false-negative antibody testing results during the “window period” may miss many patients who are actually HIV positive.
From September 2003 through June 2008, researchers conducted both HIV-antibody testing, using an enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and nucleic-acid amplification testing (NAAT) of 14,005 specimens from Seattle-area men who have sex with men (MSM). Rapid antibody testing with OraQuick was performed on a subset of 6964 specimens.
In all, 328 specimens (2.3%) were antibody positive (i.e., on either EIA or OraQuick). Of the 13,677 antibody-negative specimens, 36 (0…
Reviewing Author
DisclosuresGrant/Research SupportNIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; NIH/National Institute on Drug Abuse
Editorial BoardsJAIDS: Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes; Vaccines
Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesInternational Antiviral Society–USA (Board of Directors); Infectious Diseases Society of America (Past President)
DisclosuresGrant/Research SupportNIH/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; NIH/National Institute on Drug Abuse
Editorial BoardsJAIDS: Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes; Vaccines
Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesInternational Antiviral Society–USA (Board of Directors); Infectious Diseases Society of America (Past President)