Who Are The Intended Users?
Accu-Tell supply professional and honest service.
Take control of your health with our HIV 1/2 Antibody Test, designed for anyone concerned about potential exposure to the virus. This easy-to-use blood test screens for both HIV types 1 and 2 antibodies with an impressive accuracy rate. Detecting HIV infection after exposure, our test ensures comprehensive results.
Waiting for the window period of 23 to 90 days after exposure, our HIV 1/2 Self-Test guarantees reliable outcomes. You can now know your status from the comfort of your home with quick and confidential results. Whether you&#;ve experienced HIV symptoms, suspected exposure, or simply seek awareness, our test is the answer. Don&#;t compromise your well-being; order our HIV 1/2 Antibody Test today and embrace a healthier future.
1 Test Cassette
1 Vial With Dropper Containing The Diluent
2 Sterile Lancets
1 Pipette For Blood Sampling
1 Cleanser Gauze
Instructions For Use
Want more information on HIV Rapid Test Cassette? Feel free to contact us.
Our HIV 1/2 Antibody Test boasts an impressive accuracy rate. When used correctly and within the appropriate window period of 23 to 90 days after exposure, the test provides reliable results in detecting HIV infection. However, following the instructions carefully is essential to ensure accurate outcomes. If you&#;re unsure, consult a medical professional.
Using our HIV 1/2 Self-Test is simple and convenient. Inside the kit, you&#;ll find all the necessary components and clear instructions to guide you through the process. Generally, the test involves a small blood sample, which can be obtained using a lancet provided in the kit. Once you have the blood sample, follow the step-by-step instructions to run the test. Within a few minutes, the test will indicate the presence of HIV 1 and 2 antibodies, and you&#;ll have your results.
The HIV 1/2 antibody test is a type of screening test that looks for antibodies produced by the immune system in response to HIV infection. It can detect both HIV type 1 and type 2 antibodies in the blood. HIV 1 is the most common type worldwide, while HIV 2 is predominantly found in certain regions. This test is not designed to detect the virus itself but rather the body&#;s response to the infection. It is essential to keep in mind the window period of 23 to 90 days after exposure, during which the body may not have produced detectable levels of antibodies yet. Therefore, testing within this period may yield false-negative results. Always ensure you wait for the appropriate time to get accurate outcomes.
Collectively, First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit showed 100 % sensitivity for the detection of HIV-1 with both serum and whole blood specimens, 100 % specificity with whole blood and these results completely agreed with those of ECLIA. Yet, the high number of False Positives (25) observed with serum specimen on the test kit was contrary to ECLIA and resulted in a lower Positive and Negative Predictive Values (85.37 %) (82.86 %) respectively. These results were consistent with Anzala et al. [14] who assessed Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) kits used for counseling and testing in Kenya and Uganda.
Positive Predictive Value (PPV) is the proportion of patients with a positive test who actually have the disease. Negative Predictive Value (NPV) is the proportion of patients with a negative test who do not have the disease. One way to avoid confusing this with sensitivity and specificity is to imagine that you are a patient and you have just received the results of your screening test. If the test was positive, then what is the probability that &#;you&#; the patient really have the disease (Positive Prediction), that is how worried should you be? Conversely, if it is good news, and the screening test was negative, how reassured should you be? Thus the probability that you are disease free? (Negative Prediction).
Generally, the performance of HIV rapid diagnostic testing in a population is influenced by Positive and Negative Predictive values of the RDT kits used. Thus sensitivity and specificity results obtained from test kit evaluation studies (quoted in manufacturer&#;s instruction manuals) prior to licensing and marketing of the kit will not necessarily be achieved in practice. Predictive values vary among populations such that PPV and NPV of HIV RDT kits are lower in low HIV prevalent areas like Ghana (1.3 %) [15]. In this study a PPV of 85.37 % was recorded with serum specimen explaining the higher False Positives and the lower negative prediction of the test kit compared to ECLIA. This suggests that ~15 % of people who test with serum specimen on First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit in such study settings with similar characteristics as Ghana will receive False Positive results. Among the positive samples tested, both whole blood and serum showed similar PPVs (100 %) as ECLIA. This suggests however, that First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit is well designed to detect HIV-1 antibodies in blood specimen if they so contain any. Never the less, the lower specificity (82.86 %) expressed by the RDT kit indicates the occurrence of high cross-reactivity when serum is used as the test specimen. Serum specimens are known to contain various antibodies that may bind to reaction sites (epitopes) meant for target antibodies [16]. Therefore, First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kits may present the challenge of high antibody cross-reactivity with serum specimen than whole blood. Hence, serum specimen may not accurately predict the presence or absence of HIV-1-specific antibodies in the blood. The increased PPV and NPV with whole blood in the current study may imply that the lower performance of the test kit observed under serum could be improved with whole blood specimens. Accordingly, a second test kit of higher specificity may not be needed to confirm serum results on First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit as recommended by Parekh et al. [15]. In the case of Ghana, this will save cost, and the more expensive and scarce OraQuick Advanced HIV-1-2 RDT kits may not be fast needed to confirm initially screened serum results. Alternatively, samples may be screened first with whole blood instead of serum on First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit and reactive ones confirmed on OraQuick Advance HIV-1-2 RDT kit to minimize wastage of the later.
Although the comparable sensitivity and PPV results (100 %) achieved with First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit in the current study using whole blood differed in absolute percentages from Kroidl et al. [10] (99.5 %) yet were consistent with those reported by the manufacturer (100 %). Moreover, this study tested whole blood samples collected from low HIV prevalent populations whereas Kroidl et al., , sampled the blood from high prevalent populations. This gives a hint to better use whole blood on First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit in both low and high HIV prevalent populations. Even though the higher Positive Predictive Value and zero False Positive results achieved with whole blood specimen in this study were contrary to what was reported by Bi et al. [17]; the two studies differ in certain respect. Whereas First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit was used in the current study, OraQuick Advance HIV-1-2 RDT kit was assessed in theirs. Notwithstanding, it has been documented by Moal et al. [6] that HIV RDT kits from different manufacturers vary in sensitivity and specificity. Providing grounds to infer that the technologies used to design these kits may also differ hence would not yield parallel results with similar test specimen.
The present study is limited in various ways, and that the results should be interpreted with caution. Commercial ELISA that has been fully described in the study setting was not used as the reference test. There were no documents in the current setting that compared the HIV diagnostic performance of ECLIA to commercial ELISA. Nonetheless, the diagnostic successes of ECLIA over commercial ELISA [17] cannot be ignored.
This study is one of the few that assessed HIV RDT kits against ECLIA [17, 18] and the only one that had compared First Response HIV-1-2 RDT kit to ECLIA. Again, the False Positive results observed with serum specimen were not confirmed with PCR because of limited logistics and technical constraints.
Nevertheless, ECLIA is highly sensitive and specific and had performed well against PCR in diagnosing HIV infection in multiethnic regions [17]. Moreover, all the False Positive serum samples were negative with whole blood and this was consistent with ECLIA which also uses serum as test specimen. These results show the success of the exclusion criteria since many discrepant results were minimized.
Contact us to discuss your requirements of Strep a Rapid Test Strip. Our experienced sales team can help you identify the options that best suit your needs.