1 / 10

Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program

Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program. Comparison of Less Sensitive HIV Incidence Tests for the Serological Testing Algorithm for Recent HIV Seroconversion (STARHS) J. Schiffer, B. Byers, B. Branson, S. Ethridge, K. Delaney, J. Mei. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

zada
Download Presentation

Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Newborn Screening Quality Assurance Program Comparison of Less Sensitive HIV Incidence Tests for the Serological Testing Algorithm for Recent HIV Seroconversion (STARHS) J. Schiffer, B. Byers, B. Branson, S. Ethridge, K. Delaney, J. Mei Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, GA 30341

  2. Background • STARHS uses a modified protocol of the bioMerieux Vironostika HIV-1 MicroElisa system (V-LS)- To be replaced in 2005 • We investigated the comparability of the replacement test, Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O (VPlusO-LS) • Longitudinal specimens from the HIVNET Infected Participant Cohort (IPC) were tested using both kits

  3. Methods • IPC specimen set • 1009 specimens from 105 recent seroconverters • Known dates of last negative and first positive HIV test • Tested in triplicate on both assays

  4. Methods • Window Period Calculation • 324 specimens from 59 patients • 3 or more specimens collected before starting antiretroviral therapy (Mean length of follow up 504 Days) • Mean window period definition • Number of days between detection of HIV antibody with a standard EIA and a threshold SOD of 1.0 with the LS-EIA

  5. Results • V-LS classified 459 samples as incident (SOD<1), and VplusO classified 472 as incident (90.2% concordance). • Specimen SOD’s diminished after patients started antiretroviral therapy.

  6. V-LS vs. VplusO-LS Sqrt SOD 3.5 3 y = 0.996x + 0.0356 2 R = 0.8482 2.5 2 VplusO-LS Sqrt SOD 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 V-LS Sqrt SOD

  7. Table 1: Window Period and Confidence Intervals for LS Tests

  8. Two-Year Rule • SODs tended to plateau or decline after 2 years from last negative specimen. • May result in longer window periods • New window periods calculated excluding specimens collected after 2 years from last negative test

  9. Table 2 Window periods and confidence intervals for V-LS and VplusO-LS calculated with the two year cutoff rule applied to the IPC sample set. The V-LS window period previously published using the SFMHS sample set (Kothe et al. 2003) is shown for comparison.

  10. Acknowledgements • Chip Sheppard and Sean Watson of the California Department of Health Services for providing the HIVNET IPC specimens, without which this work would not have been possible. • We would also like to thank Debra Kuehl, Silvina Masciotra, Hetal Patel, and Donna Rudolph for their help with organizing and aliquoting the IPC sample set

More Related