Abstract

BackgroundUpdated recommendations for HIV diagnostic laboratory testing published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Public Health Laboratories incorporate 4th generation HIV immunoassays, which are capable of identifying HIV infection prior to seroconversion. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare turnaround time and cost between 3rd and 4th generation HIV immunoassay-based testing algorithms for initially reactive results. Study DesignThe clinical microbiology laboratory database at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN was queried for 3rd generation (from November 2012 to May 2014) and 4th generation (from May 2014 to November 2015) HIV immunoassay results. All results from downstream supplemental testing were recorded. Turnaround time (defined as the time of initial sample receipt in the laboratory to the time the final supplemental test in the algorithm was resulted) and cost (based on 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates) were assessed. ResultsA total of 76,454 and 78,998 initial tests were performed during the study period using the 3rd generation and 4th generation HIV immunoassays, respectively. There were 516 (0.7%) and 581 (0.7%) total initially reactive results, respectively. Of these, 304 (58.9%) and 457 (78.7%) were positive by supplemental testing. There were 10 (0.01%) cases of acute HIV infection identified with the 4th generation algorithm. The most frequent tests performed to confirm an HIV-positive case using the 3rd generation algorithm, which were reactive initial immunoassay and positive HIV-1 Western blot, took a median time of 1.1 days to complete at a cost of $45.00. In contrast, the most frequent tests performed to confirm an HIV-positive case using the 4th generation algorithm, which included a reactive initial immunoassay and positive HIV-1/-2 antibody differentiation immunoassay for HIV-1, took a median time of 0.4 days and cost $63.25. Overall median turnaround time was 2.2 and 1.5 days, and overall median cost was $63.90 and $72.50 for 3rd and 4th generation algorithms, respectively. ConclusionsBoth 3rd and 4th generation HIV immunoassays had similar total numbers of tests performed and positivity rates during the study period. A greater proportion of reactive 4th generation immunoassays were confirmed to be positive, and the 4th generation algorithm identified several cases of acute HIV infection that would have been missed by the 3rd generation algorithm. The 4th generation algorithm had a more rapid turnaround time but higher cost for confirmed positive HIV infections and overall, compared to the 3rd generation algorithm.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call