HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?

Context: The choice of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-2 differs from that for HIV-1, underscoring the importance of differentiating between the two. Aims: The current study was planned to find out the prevalence of HIV-2 infection at our center and to find out the utility of the current diagnostic a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nayana A Ingole, Purva P Sarkate, Supriya M Paranjpe, Sameer D Shinde, Sujata S Lall, Preeti R Mehta
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2013-01-01
Series:Journal of Global Infectious Diseases
Subjects:
HIV
Online Access:http://www.jgid.org/article.asp?issn=0974-777X;year=2013;volume=5;issue=3;spage=110;epage=113;aulast=Ingole
id doaj-3cc2d3dc4a3b4fb3b4bef3d25f010bae
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3cc2d3dc4a3b4fb3b4bef3d25f010bae2020-11-24T22:40:43ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Global Infectious Diseases0974-777X2013-01-015311011310.4103/0974-777X.116872HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?Nayana A IngolePurva P SarkateSupriya M ParanjpeSameer D ShindeSujata S LallPreeti R MehtaContext: The choice of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-2 differs from that for HIV-1, underscoring the importance of differentiating between the two. Aims: The current study was planned to find out the prevalence of HIV-2 infection at our center and to find out the utility of the current diagnostic algorithm in identifying the type of HIV infection. Setting and Design: Retrospective analysis in a tertiary care teaching institute over a period of three years. Materials and Methods: All patients diagnosed as HIV infected using NACO/WHO HIV testing strategy III were included in the study. They were classified as HIV-1 infected, HIV-2 infected and HIV-1 and HIV-2 co-infected based on their test results. For discordant samples, immunoblotting result from National Reference Laboratory was considered as final. Statistical Analysis Used: Comparison between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1+2 positive groups for age, gender, route of transmission was made using chi squared test. P value < 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: Of the total of 66,708 patients tested, 5,238 (7.9%) were positive for HIV antibodies. 7.62%, 0.14%, 0.08% and 0.004% were HIV-1, HIV-2, HIV-1 and HIV-2 co-infected and HIV type indeterminate (HIV-1 Indeterminate, 2+) respectively. The current algorithm could not differentiate between the types of HIV infection (as HIV-1 or HIV-2) in 63 (1.2%) cases. Conclusion: In areas like the Indian subcontinent, where epidemic of both HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections are ongoing, it is important to modify the current diagnostic algorithms to diagnose and confirm HIV-2 infections.http://www.jgid.org/article.asp?issn=0974-777X;year=2013;volume=5;issue=3;spage=110;epage=113;aulast=IngoleHIVHIV epidemicHIV-2Testing algorithm
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nayana A Ingole
Purva P Sarkate
Supriya M Paranjpe
Sameer D Shinde
Sujata S Lall
Preeti R Mehta
spellingShingle Nayana A Ingole
Purva P Sarkate
Supriya M Paranjpe
Sameer D Shinde
Sujata S Lall
Preeti R Mehta
HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?
Journal of Global Infectious Diseases
HIV
HIV epidemic
HIV-2
Testing algorithm
author_facet Nayana A Ingole
Purva P Sarkate
Supriya M Paranjpe
Sameer D Shinde
Sujata S Lall
Preeti R Mehta
author_sort Nayana A Ingole
title HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?
title_short HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?
title_full HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?
title_fullStr HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?
title_full_unstemmed HIV-2 infection: Where are we today?
title_sort hiv-2 infection: where are we today?
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Journal of Global Infectious Diseases
issn 0974-777X
publishDate 2013-01-01
description Context: The choice of antiretroviral therapy for HIV-2 differs from that for HIV-1, underscoring the importance of differentiating between the two. Aims: The current study was planned to find out the prevalence of HIV-2 infection at our center and to find out the utility of the current diagnostic algorithm in identifying the type of HIV infection. Setting and Design: Retrospective analysis in a tertiary care teaching institute over a period of three years. Materials and Methods: All patients diagnosed as HIV infected using NACO/WHO HIV testing strategy III were included in the study. They were classified as HIV-1 infected, HIV-2 infected and HIV-1 and HIV-2 co-infected based on their test results. For discordant samples, immunoblotting result from National Reference Laboratory was considered as final. Statistical Analysis Used: Comparison between HIV-1, HIV-2 and HIV-1+2 positive groups for age, gender, route of transmission was made using chi squared test. P value < 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: Of the total of 66,708 patients tested, 5,238 (7.9%) were positive for HIV antibodies. 7.62%, 0.14%, 0.08% and 0.004% were HIV-1, HIV-2, HIV-1 and HIV-2 co-infected and HIV type indeterminate (HIV-1 Indeterminate, 2+) respectively. The current algorithm could not differentiate between the types of HIV infection (as HIV-1 or HIV-2) in 63 (1.2%) cases. Conclusion: In areas like the Indian subcontinent, where epidemic of both HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections are ongoing, it is important to modify the current diagnostic algorithms to diagnose and confirm HIV-2 infections.
topic HIV
HIV epidemic
HIV-2
Testing algorithm
url http://www.jgid.org/article.asp?issn=0974-777X;year=2013;volume=5;issue=3;spage=110;epage=113;aulast=Ingole
work_keys_str_mv AT nayanaaingole hiv2infectionwherearewetoday
AT purvapsarkate hiv2infectionwherearewetoday
AT supriyamparanjpe hiv2infectionwherearewetoday
AT sameerdshinde hiv2infectionwherearewetoday
AT sujataslall hiv2infectionwherearewetoday
AT preetirmehta hiv2infectionwherearewetoday
_version_ 1725703678438932480