Ngansop C, Kenmogne P, Kuate S, Zekeng L, Kengne M, Kaptue L; International Conference on AIDS.
Int Conf AIDS. 2000 Jul 9-14; 13: abstract no. TuPeA2992.
C. Ngansop, Faculte de Medecine Laboratoire D'Hematologie, Yaounde, Cameroon, Tel.: +237 211 284, Fax: +237 209 075, E-mail: prkaptue@cammet.cm
Objective: To evaluate two algorithms used for the screening of HIV1 group O infection. Method: Between January and April 1997, and in two provinces of Cameroon, blood samples were collected from various categories of individuals including blood donors, patients suspected of having HIV/AIDS as well as those with tuberculosis and STDs. The resulting plasma samples were screened for HIV. Two algorithmstargeted at detecting the group O virus were used. These consisted firstly of testing all samples with the Enzygnost Anti HIV 1/2 plus kit (Behring). The positive samples were further tested with the Wellcozyme HIV recombinant kit (Murex) for confirmation. All samples with a threshold/sample OD ratio greater than 5 were considered positive for HIV 1 group M. Those with a ratio less than 5 were suspected to possess HIV 1 group O antibodies. These were further confirmed with the Innolia 1/2 and O kit (Innogenetics). In the second algorithm, all samples were simultaneously tested with the Enzygnost Anti HIV 1/2 plus kit (Behring) and the Innotest O kit (Innogenetics). Samples positive for the Innotest kit were immediatly confirmed using the Innolia 1/2 and Innolia O kit. Those positive to the Enzygnost kit were confirmed with the Wellcozyme HIV recombinant and/or with specific Western Blots. In both algorithms, samples tested with the Innolia 1/2 and O kit were confired using ELISA Loop V3 (Behring). Results: A total of 2093 were analysed from 1193 Females and 900 Males. Of these 491 (23.5%) were positive. 473 (96.3%) were positive for HIV1-M; 3 (0.6%) for HIV2 and 15 (3%) for HIV1-O. Using the first algorithm, of 23 samples suspected of containing HIV-1-O antibodies, only 13 were confirmed by the V3 Loop cCompared to 15 of the 15 Samples suspected in the second algorithm. There were two cases of co-infection (HIV1-M and O) in the latter group with the remainning 13 cases infected only with HIV1-O. The 2 cases of co-infection were not detected by the first algorithm since their profile resembled that of HIV1-M with the Wellcozyme HIV recombinant kit (R > 5). Conclusion: The results suggest a defect in the detection of co-infections using the ratio algorithm, especially if these have the same profile as HIV1-M. The additional use of the Innotest O kit will not only detect HIV1-O antibodies, but also co-infections with HIV1-M and O groups. Consequently, the second algorithm seems more recommendable for screening for group O HIV infection.
Publication Types:
Keywords:
- Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
- Blood Donors
- Blotting, Western
- Cameroon
- Communicable Diseases
- Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
- Female
- HIV
- HIV Antibodies
- HIV Antigens
- HIV Core Protein p24
- HIV Envelope Protein gp120
- HIV Envelope Protein gp160
- HIV Envelope Protein gp41
- HIV Infections
- HIV Seropositivity
- HIV Seroprevalence
- HIV-1
- HIV-2
- Humans
- Male
- Mass Screening
- Tuberculosis
- diagnosis
- immunology
- utilization
Other ID:
UI: 102238838
From Meeting Abstracts