{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041666666666666664, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009963768115942028, 'mean_word_length': 5.440233236151603, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lack of screening test sensitivity during HIV‐1 non‐subtype B seroconversions

Objective: To evaluate the serological consequences of HIV‐1 group M diversity we studied the ability of screening tests to detect anti‐HIV antibodies in early seroconvert‐ers infected by different HIV subtypes. Setting: Virology Department, Bichat‐Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France. Design and methods: Symptomatic patients with serial samples and with infective strains characterized by heteroduplex mobility assay. In each case, two sera were selected. The first (pre‐seroconversion sample) was the last p24 antigen‐positive/Western blot‐non‐reactive sample. The second (seroconversion sample) was the first Western blot‐reactive sample. One second‐generation enzyme immunoassay (EIA; Abbott) based on anti‐human immunoglobulin (Ig) G‐conjugate and three third generation EIA (Abbott; Enzygnost; Genscreen) based on the double antigen sandwich principle, detecting IgM and IgG, were used. Results: Ten patients had subtype B strains and nine had non‐B strains (seven were A, one E and one G). The Abbott third‐generation test was more sensitive than the second generation test for pre‐seroconversion subtype B samples (nine versus four out of 10; P<0.05), but not for non‐B subtypes; only two of the nine non‐B sera tested were positive by both EIA. Positivity rates and optical densities differed (P<0.05) between B and non‐B subtypes in all third‐generation EIA. There was no significant difference between the subtype B and non‐B groups with regard to the interval between the pre‐seroconversion sample and the seroconversion sample (subtype B, 6.7 ±2.6 days; non‐B, 5.2 ± 1.7 days). No significant difference in positivity rates and optical densities were found between B and non‐B subtypes in these seroconversion samples. Conclusion: The shorter time since HIV infection required for sera to become reactive in third‐generation EIA screening tests is due to better sensitivity for subtype B strains only. These results stress the importance of strict donor selection, the need to test screening kits against large panels of all subtypes, and the place of p24 antigen testing in closing the window of seroconversion.