...
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology >Diagnostic accuracy of fourth-generation ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay and utility of signal-to-cutoff ratio to predict false-positive HIV tests in pregnancy
【24h】

Diagnostic accuracy of fourth-generation ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay and utility of signal-to-cutoff ratio to predict false-positive HIV tests in pregnancy

机译:第四代建筑师HIV AG / AB组合测定的诊断准确性和信号到截止率的效用,以预测怀孕的假阳性HIV测试

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BackgroundFalse-positive HIV screening tests in pregnancy may lead to unnecessary interventions in labor. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a new algorithm for HIV diagnosis using a fourth-generation screening test, which detects antibodies to HIV as well as p24 antigen and has a shorter window period compared with prior generations. A reactive screen requires a differentiation assay, and supplemental qualitative RNA testing is necessary for nonreactive differentiation assay. One screening test, the ARCHITECT Ag/Ab Combo assay, is described to have 100% sensitivity and >99% specificity in nonpregnant populations; however, its clinical performance in pregnancy has not been well described. ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to determine the performance of the ARCHITECT assay among pregnant women at a large county hospital and to assess whether the relative signal-to-cutoff ratio can be used to differentiate between false-positive vs confirmed HIV infections in women with a nonreactive differentiation assay. Study DesignThis is a retrospective review of fourth-generation HIV testing in pregnant women at Parkland Hospital between June 1, 2015, and Jan. 31, 2017. We identified gravidas screened using the ARCHITECT Ag/Ab Combo assay (index test), with reflex to differentiation assay. Women with reactive ARCHITECT and nonreactive differentiation assay were evaluated with a qualitative RNA assay (reference standard). We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and false-positive rate of the ARCHITECT screening assay in our population and described characteristics of women with false-positive HIV testing vs confirmed infection. Among women with a nonreactive differentiation assay, we compared interventions among?women with and without a qualitative RNA assay result available at delivery and examined relative signal-to-cutoff ratios of the ARCHITECT assay in women with false-positive vs confirmed HIV infection. ResultsA total of 21,163 pregnant women were screened using the ARCHITECT assay, and 190 tested positive. Of these, 33 of 190 (17%) women had false-positive HIV screening tests (28 deliveries available for analysis), and 157 of 190 (83%) had confirmed HIV-1 infection (140 available for analysis). Diagnostic accuracy of the ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay in our prenatal population (with 95% confidence interval) was as follows: sensitivity, 100% (97.7–100%); specificity, 99.8% (99.8–99.9%); positive likelihood ratio, 636 (453–895); negative likelihood ratio, 0.0 (NA); positive predictive value, 83% (77–88%); and false positive rate, 0.16% (0.11–0.22%), with a prevalence of 7 per 1000. Women with false-positive HIV testing were younger and more likely of Hispanic ethnicity. A qualitative RNA assay (reference standard) was performed prenatally in 24 (86%) and quantitative viral load in 22 (92%). Interventions occurred more frequently in women without a qualitative RNA assay result available at delivery, including intrapartum zidovudine (75% vs 4%,P?= .002), breastfeeding delay (75% vs 8%,P?= .001), and neonatal zidovudine initiation (75% vs 4%,P?= .002). The ARCHITECT signal-to-cutoff ratio was significantly lower for women with false-positive HIV tests compared with those with established HIV infection (1.89 [1.27, 2.73] vs 533.65 [391.12, 737.22], respectively,P< .001). ConclusionWhile the performance of the fourth-generation ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay among pregnant women is comparable with that reported in nonpregnant populations, clinical implications of using a screening test with a positive predictive value of 83% in pregnancy are significant. When the qualitative RNA assay result is unavailable, absence of risk factors in combination with an ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab assay S/Co ratio <5 and nonreactive differentiation assay provide sufficient evidence to support deferral of unnecessary intrapartum interventions while awaiting qualitative RNA results.
机译:BrounctStofals-阳性艾滋病毒筛查在妊娠中的筛选试验可能导致劳动中不必要的干预措施。 2014年,疾病控制和预防中心利用第四代筛查试验发布了一种新的HIV诊断算法,其检测抗艾滋病毒以及P24抗原的抗体,并且与先前几代相比具有较短的窗口周期。反应筛网需要分化测定,并且补充定性RNA测试是不反应性分化测定所必需的。一个筛选试验,建筑师AG / AB组合测定,描述为100%的敏感性和非妊娠群体的特异性> 99%;然而,其在怀孕期间的临床表现尚未得到很好的描述。该研究的目的是确定大县医院孕妇的建筑师测定的表现,并评估相对信号 - 截止比是否可以用于区分假阳性VS证实妇女的艾滋病毒感染一个非反应性分化测定。研究设计这是2015年6月1日和2017年1月31日在2017年6月31日之间孕妇的第四代艾滋病毒检测的回顾性审查。使用Reflex的建筑师AG / AB组合测定(指数试验)识别引诱筛查。分化测定。具有可反应建筑师和非反应性分化测定的妇女进行了定性RNA测定(参考标准)。我们计算我们人群中建筑师筛查测定的敏感性,特异性,预测值和假阳性率,并描述了患有假阳性HIV检测的妇女的特征与确诊感染。在具有非反应性分化测定的妇女中,我们将涉及和没有定性RNA测定结果的妇女进行比较,并且在患有假阳性VS的女性中,在妇女中检测到患者的相对信号与截止比率证实HIV感染。使用建筑师测定,结果总共21,163孕妇筛选,并进行了阳性。其中,190名(17%)的妇女中有33名具有假阳性HIV筛查试验(可用于分析的28个交付),190名(83%)的157名(83%)确认了HIV-1感染(140可用于分析)。我们产前群体建筑师HIV AG / AB组合测定的诊断准确性(具有95%置信区间)如下:敏感性,100%(97.7-100%);特异性,99.8%(99.8-99.9%);正似然比,636(453-895);负似然比,0.0(NA);阳性预测值,83%(77-88%);假阳性率,0.16%(0.11-0.22%),每1000次患病率为7.患有假艾滋病毒检测的妇女更年轻,更有可能是西班牙裔民族。定性RNA测定(参考标准标准)在24(86%)和22(92%)中的定量病毒载量进行预先进行。在没有定性RNA测定结果的女性中,在递送时,母乳喂养(75%与4%),母乳喂养延迟(75%vs 8%,p?= .001)和新生儿齐凡押开始(75%vs 4%,p?= .002)。对于具有已建立的HIV感染的人(1.89 [1.27,2.73] Vs 533.65 [391.12,737.22]而具有假阳性HIV试验的女性,建筑用信号到截止率显着降低了伪阳性HIV测试的措施。结论孕妇第四代建筑师HIV AG / AB组合测定的表现与非妊娠人口中报告的患者相比,妊娠期阳性预测值83%的筛选试验的临床意义是显着的。当定性RNA测定结果不可用时,与建筑师HIV AG / AB测定S / C共比<5和非反应性分化测定的危险因素具有足够的证据,以支持在等待定性RNA结果的同时支持不必要的内部干预措施的推迟。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号