AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 313–317 | Cite as

Comparisons of New HIV Rapid Test Kit Performance

  • Dennis G. FisherEmail author
  • Kristen L. Hess
  • Grace L. Reynolds
  • Todd A. Alonzo
  • Loucine M. Huckabay
  • Lucy Van Otterloo
  • David W. Hosmer
Original Paper


The development of rapid point-of-care tests for HIV infection has greatly reduced the problem of failure to return for test results. Test manufacturers are now developing test kits that can test for two or even three diseases at the same time, multiple-disease test kits. This study reports on the sensitivity and specificity of HIV tests when included on multi-disease test kits. 1029 participants were recruited from 2011 to 2014. HIV test kit sensitivities ranged from 91.1 to 100%, and the HIV test kit specificities from 99.5 to 100%. The two HIV kits which used oral fluid instead of blood performed well.


HIV testing Point-of-care tests Rapid tests 


El desarrollo de pruebas rápidas en el punto de atención (POC) para la infección del VIH ha reducido enormemente el problema de la falta de retorno por los resultados de las pruebas por parte del paciente. Los fabricantes de pruebas ya están desarrollando kits que pueden probar dos o incluso tres enfermedades al mismo tiempo, los llamados kits de prueba de enfermedades múltiples. Este estudio informa sobre la sensibilidad y especificidad de las pruebas de VIH cuando se incluyen en kits de pruebas de enfermedades múltiples. 1029 participantes fueron reclutados entre 2011 y 2014. Las sensibilidades del kit de prueba de VIH oscilaron entre 91.1% y 100%, en tanto que las especificidades estuvieron entre 99.5% y 100%. Los dos kits de VIH que usan fluido oral en lugar de sangre funcionaron bien.



The project described was supported in part by Award Numbers R01DA030234 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), P20MD003942 from the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), ID10-CSULB-008 from the California HIV Research Program (CHRP). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities, the National Institutes of Health, or the California HIV Research Program. The NIDA, NIMHD, and CHRP had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study under a protocol and using an Informed Consent Form approved by the California State University, Long Beach, Institutional Review Board.


  1. 1.
    Galli RA, Green KF, La Marca A, Waldman LF, Powers RE, Daly AC, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy and ease of use of a rapid HIV-1 antibody test performed by untrained operators at the point of care. J Clin Virol. 2013;58S:e65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher DG, Hess KL, Erlyana E, Reynolds GL, Cummins CA, Alonzo TA. Comparison of rapid point-of-care tests for detection of antibodies to hepatitis C virus. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2015;2(3):ofv101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reynolds GL, Fisher DG, Napper LE, Marsh KA, Willey C, Brooks R. Results from a multiple morbidities testing program offering rapid HIV testing bundled with hepatitis and sexually transmitted infection testing. Public Health Rep. 2008;123(S3):63–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marsh KA, Reynolds GL, Rogala BE, Fisher DG, Napper LE. Who chooses a rapid test for HIV in Los Angeles County, California? Eval Health Prof. 2010;33(2):177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nolan S, Wood E. End of the debate about antiretroviral treatment initiation. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14:258–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett B, Branson BM, Delaney KP, Owen SM, Pentella M, Werner B. HIV testing algorithms: a status report. Silver Spring: The Association of Public Health Laboratories; 2009. p. 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bristow CC, Leon SR, Huang E, Ramos LB, Vargas SK, Flores JA, et al. Field evaluation of a dual rapid immunodiagnostic test for HIV and syphilis infection in Peru. Sex Transm Dis. 2015;43(1):57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cagle HH, Fisher DG, Senter TP, Thurmond RD, Kastar AJ. Classifying skin lesions of injection drug users: a method for corroborating disease risk. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2002. p. 1–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laboratories Bio-Rad. Human immunodeficienty virus types 1 and 2. Redmond: Bio-Rad Laboratories; 2014.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26:404–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaspard M, Le Moal G, Saberan-Roncato M, Plainchamp D, Langlis A, Camps P, et al. Finger-stick whole blood HIV-1/-2 home-use tests are more sensitive than oral fluid-based in-home HIV tests. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e101148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delaney KP, Branson BM, Uniyal A, Kerndt PR, Keenan PA, Jafa K, et al. Performance of an oral fluid rapid HIV-1/2 test: experience from four CDC studies. AIDS. 2006;20(12):1655–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pant Pai N, Balram B, Shivkumar S, Martinez-Cajas JL, Claessens C, Lambert G, et al. Head-to-head comparison of accuracy of a rapid point-of-care HIV test with oral versus whole-blood specimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(5):373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stekler JD, Ure G, O’Neal JD, Lane A, Swanson F, Maenza J, et al. Performance of determine combo and other point-of-care HIV tests among Seattle MSM. J Clin Virol. 2016;76:8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sema Baltazar C, Raposo C, Jani IV, Shodell D, Correia D, Goncalves da Silva C, et al. Evaluation of performance and acceptability of two rapid oral fluid tests for HIV detection in Mozambique. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(10):3544–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu Y, Zhang Z, Li D, Liu Y, Pan SW, Qi X, et al. Willingness to use the oral fluid HIV rapid test among men who have sex with men in Beijing, China. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hernandez D, Feaster DJ, Gooden L, Douaihy A, Mandler R, Erickson SJ, et al. Self-report HIV and HCV screening rates an serostatus among substance abuse treatment patients. AIDS Behav. 2016;20:204–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valdiserri RO, Moore M, Gerber AR, Campbell CH Jr, Dillon BA, West GR. A study of clients returning for counseling after HIV testing: implications for improving rates of return. Public Health Rep. 1993;108(1):12–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Irarrazábal LP, Ferrer L, Cianelli R, Lara L, Reed R, Levy J, et al. Oral rapid test: an alternative to traditional HIV screening in Chile. Pan Am J Public Health. 2013;33(6):427–32.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Telles-Dias P, Westman S, Fernandez A, Sanchez M. Perceptions of HIV rapid testing among injecting drug users in Brazil. Rev Saúde Pública. 2007;41(Supl. 2):94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Behavioral Research and ServicesCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  3. 3.Children’s Oncology Group, Department of Preventive MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMonroviaUSA
  4. 4.School of NursingCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  5. 5.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of VermontStoweUSA

Personalised recommendations