Are Confirmatory Assays Reliable for HIV-1/HIV-2 Infection Differentiation? A Multicenter Study

Abstract

Immunoblots remain the gold standard for HIV-1/HIV-2 infection confirmation. However, their ability to differentiate HIV-1 from HIV-2 infection on an antigenically diversified HIV-1 and HIV-2 panel remain uncommon. We performed a multicenter study on 116 serum samples accounting for most of the diversity of HIV-1 (9 different subtypes in group M, 17 circulating recombinant forms (CRFs), and 3 group O) and HIV-2 (groups A and B), evaluating seven confirmatory assays (six commercially available assays and one in-house assay) with genotyping as the reference. The assays were INNO-LIA HIV I/II score, HIV-2 blot 1.2, HIV blot 2.2, New Lav blot I and II, Geenius, and an in-house serotyping enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Among the HIV-1 samples, INNO-LIA, HIV blot 2.2, New Lav blot I, Geenius, and serotyping had comparable high sensitivities, from 98% to 100%, whereas HIV-2 blot 1.2 and New Lav blot II had high rates of “undetermined” results (85% and 95%, respectively). HIV-2 blot 1.2 and New Lav blot II misclassified 7% and 5% of HIV-1 samples as HIV-2, respectively, and HIV-2 blot 1.2 had an 8% false-negative rate. Among the HIV-2 samples, INNO-LIA, New Lav blot II, HIV-2 blot 1.2, and serotyping had high sensitivities, from 96% to 100%. HIV blot 2.2 misclassified 17% of HIV-2 samples as HIV-1/HIV-2 dual infections. New Lav blot I misclassified 19% of HIV-2 samples as HIV-1 with a high (81%) undetermined rate, and Geenius misclassified 2% as HIV-1 and 7% as untypeable HIV positive. For HIV-1/HIV-2 dual infection, the results were less sensitive, with at most 87.5% for INNO-LIA and Geenius and 75% for HIV blot 2.2 and serotyping. Overall, confirmatory assays remain useful for most cases, with the exception of HIV-1/HIV-2 dual-infection suspicion.