We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluation of the Architect HIV Ag/Ab Combo Assay in a low-prevalence setting: The role of samples with a low S/CO ratio.
Journal of Clinical Virology 2018 June
BACKGROUND: The Architect HIV Ag/Ab Combo Assay, a fourth-generation ELISA, has proven to be highly reliable for the diagnosis of HIV infection. However, its high sensitivity may lead to false-positive results.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of Architect in a low-prevalence population and to assess the role of the sample-to-cutoff ratio (S/CO) in reducing the frequency of false-positive results.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study of samples analyzed by Architect between January 2015 and June 2017. Positive samples were confirmed by immunoblot (RIBA) or nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). Different S/CO thresholds (1, 2.5, 10, 25, and 100) were analyzed to determine sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV). ROC analysis was used to determine the optimal S/CO.
RESULTS: A total of 69,471 samples were analyzed. 709 (1.02%) were positive by Architect. Of these, 63 (8.89%) were false-positive results. Most of them (93.65%) were in samples with S/CO < 100. However, most confirmations by NAATs (12 out of 19 cases) were also recorded for these samples. The optimal S/CO was 2.5, which provided the highest area under the ROC curve (0.9998) and no false-negative results. With this S/CO, sensitivity and specificity were 100.0%, and PPV and NPV were 95.8% and 100.0%, respectively. In addition, the frequency of false-positive results decreased significantly to 4.15%.
CONCLUSIONS: Although Architect generates a relatively high number of false-positive results, raising the S/CO limit too much to increase specificity can lead to false-negative results, especially in newly infected individuals.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of Architect in a low-prevalence population and to assess the role of the sample-to-cutoff ratio (S/CO) in reducing the frequency of false-positive results.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective study of samples analyzed by Architect between January 2015 and June 2017. Positive samples were confirmed by immunoblot (RIBA) or nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). Different S/CO thresholds (1, 2.5, 10, 25, and 100) were analyzed to determine sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV). ROC analysis was used to determine the optimal S/CO.
RESULTS: A total of 69,471 samples were analyzed. 709 (1.02%) were positive by Architect. Of these, 63 (8.89%) were false-positive results. Most of them (93.65%) were in samples with S/CO < 100. However, most confirmations by NAATs (12 out of 19 cases) were also recorded for these samples. The optimal S/CO was 2.5, which provided the highest area under the ROC curve (0.9998) and no false-negative results. With this S/CO, sensitivity and specificity were 100.0%, and PPV and NPV were 95.8% and 100.0%, respectively. In addition, the frequency of false-positive results decreased significantly to 4.15%.
CONCLUSIONS: Although Architect generates a relatively high number of false-positive results, raising the S/CO limit too much to increase specificity can lead to false-negative results, especially in newly infected individuals.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app