Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In a study to determine the reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of the Chiron RIBA HIV-1/HIV-2 Strip Immunoblot Assay (RIBA HIV-1/2 SIA) for confirmation of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and HIV-2 antibodies, 1,263 serum samples from various populations in the United States, Caribbean, Africa, India, and Thailand were evaluated by RIBA HIV-1/2 SIA, and the results were compared with those obtained by an HIV-1 Western blot (immunoblot) assay. All sera were tested by HIV enzyme immunoassay, RIBA HIV-1/2 SIA, and Western blotting. Samples with discrepant results were further tested by an HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 immunofluorescent-antibody assay and HIV-1 p24 antigen assay. The RIBA HIV-1/2 SIA detected all 17 HIV-1 and HIV-2 dually reactive serum samples, all 215 HIV-2-positive serum samples, and 480 of 481 HIV-1-positive serum samples for a sensitivity of 99.8%. Of 548 negative samples, 523 were RIBA HIV-1/2 SIA negative, for a specificity of 95.4%, with 22 (4%) samples interpreted as indeterminate and 3 (0.6%) interpreted as falsely positive. Western blotting detected 391 of 548 negative samples (specificity, 71.4%), with 152 (27.7%) samples interpreted as indeterminate and 5 (0.9%) interpreted as falsely positive. In conclusion, the RIBA HIV-1/2 SIA had a sensitivity comparable to that of Western blotting and could discriminate HIV-1 from HIV-2 in one blot, providing a cost advantage. Because of its high degree of specificity, the RIBA HIV-1/2 SIA further reduced the number of indeterminate results found by Western blotting, providing a more accurate means of assessing seronegative individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kline et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: