Publications

BACKGROUND

The flow-through INSTI™ HIV-1/HIV-2 Rapid Antibody (INSTI) test is a 60s FDA-approved test for HIV-1 and HIV-2 antibody testing using whole blood and plasma.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the performance of INSTI using plasma and simulated whole blood specimens.

STUDY DESIGN

INSTI's performance in plasma specimens from commercial seroconversion panels was assessed by estimating the relative sensitivity using a 50% cumulative frequency analysis and by comparing its performance with other FDA-approved rapid tests (RTs). INSTI was further evaluated using 320 HIV-1 plasma specimens collected during a cross-sectional study and with 107 HIV-1 and 24 HIV-2 simulated whole blood specimens. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using 615 known HIV-1 group M/O and 80 HIV-2 (Western blot (WB)-positive), and 497 HIV-negative plasma specimens, respectively.

RESULTS

In HIV-1 seroconversion panels, INSTI became reactive 9days before a positive WB. When compared to FDA-approved antibody-based lateral flow RTs, INSTI detected significantly more early infections. Among HIV-1-infected cross-sectional plasma samples, INSTI detected 23 (27%) of 85 Architect-positive/Multispot-negative or indeterminate specimens. For plasma specimens, the sensitivity was 99.84% for HIV-1 and 100% for HIV-2, and the specificity was 99.80%. Using simulated whole blood from seroconverters, INSTI performed similarly to plasma.

CONCLUSIONS

INSTI performed significantly better than antibody-based lateral flow RTs during early stages of seroconversion. Sensitivity and specificity were within the manufacturer's reported ranges. Considering the observed test performance and the almost immediate results, INSTI is an accurate option to detect HIV-1/HIV-2 antibodies in point-of-care settings where lab testing is not feasible.

OBJECTIVES

Effective oral therapies for hepatitis B and C have recently been developed, while there are no approved pharmacological therapies for alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases (ALD and NAFLD). We hypothesise that fewer advances in fatty liver diseases could be related to disparities in research attention.

METHODS

We developed the Attention-to-Burden Index (ABI) that compares the research activities during 2010-2014, and an estimate of disease burden of these 4 major liver diseases. The resulting ratio reflects either overattention (positive value) or inadequate attention (negative value) compared with disease burden. The mean research attention and disease burden were calculated from 5 and 6 different parameters, respectively. The efficacy rate of current pharmacological therapies was assessed from published clinical trials.

FINDINGS

The mean research attention for hepatitis B and C was 31% and 47%, respectively, while NAFLD and ALD received 17% and 5%. The overall burden was 5% and 28% for hepatitis B and C, and 17% and 50% for NAFLD and ALD. The calculated ABI for hepatitis B and C revealed a +6.7-fold and +1.7-fold overattention, respectively. NAFLD received an appropriate attention compared with its burden, while ALD received marked inadequate attention of -9.7-fold. The efficacy rate of current pharmacological agents was 72% for hepatitis B, 89% for hepatitis C, 25% for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and 13% for alcoholic hepatitis. Importantly, we found a positive correlation between the mean attention and the efficacy rate of current therapies in these 4 major liver diseases.

INTERPRETATION

There are important disparities between research attention and disease burden among the major liver diseases. While viral hepatitis has received considerable attention, there is a marked inadequate attention to ALD. There is a critical need to increase awareness of ALD in the liver research community.