COMPARISON OF 2 ASSAYS FOR DETECTION OF HIV ANTIBODIES IN SALIVA

Citation
P. Martinez et al., COMPARISON OF 2 ASSAYS FOR DETECTION OF HIV ANTIBODIES IN SALIVA, European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases, 14(4), 1995, pp. 330-336
Citations number
23
Categorie Soggetti
Immunology,Microbiology
ISSN journal
09349723
Volume
14
Issue
4
Year of publication
1995
Pages
330 - 336
Database
ISI
SICI code
0934-9723(1995)14:4<330:CO2AFD>2.0.ZU;2-V
Abstract
The presence of HIV antibodies was screened in 241 paired samples of s erum and saliva from seronegative subjects with risk factors for human immune deficiency virus (HIV) infection (n = 99), asymptomatic and sy mptomatic HIV-seropositive patients (n = 104) and healthy blood donors (n = 38) as negative controls, in order to assess the reliability of two saliva tests for the detection of HIV antibodies. These results we re confirmed by Western blot. The saliva samples were collected using an oral device (Salivette) maintained in the lateral gingival fold unt il the individual perceived that it was becoming less rigid due to hyd ration with saliva. The two tests were a rapid one (Test Pack) and a c onventional one (GACELISA). The results for antibody detection in sali va show 99 % specificity and 99 % sensitivity for the rapid test versu s 100 % sensitivity and 81 % specificity for the conventional test. Al l results for the saliva samples which were positive in the rapid test were confirmed by Western blot (WHO criteria), and there were no inde terminate Western blot results among the samples which were false-posi tive in the conventional enzyme immunoassay. No statistically signific ant differences were observed between the absorbance values of HIV-inf ected symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The correlation for the r esults of the HIV-antibody analysis in the paired sera was 98 %. This method of saliva sampling in combination with a rapid and sensitive te st for HIV-antibody detection may be applicable in studies conducted w ith limited technical resources or insufficiently trained health perso nnel or where blood sample collection is difficult.