Article Sidebar
Published:
Feb 27, 2023Keywords:
Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publishing rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Read more here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Main Article Content
Case Report : False-positive rapid diagnostic tests in paediatric and obstetric patients in South Africa
Josephine Keal
Ahmad H. Mazanderani
Nicola van Dongen
Gillian Sorour
Karl-Gunter Technau
Abstract
Introduction: Providing easily accessible, quick and accurate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing services (HTS) is central to achieving the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 90-90-90 targets. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for HIV are affordable and technically easy to perform. Two positive RDTs from different manufacturers are required to make a diagnosis of HIV in South Africa. Difficulty arises when there are discordant results from the two kits. In this case report, we will discuss four instances of false-positive RDTs.
Patient presentation: Case 1 is a 10-year-old female, referred for initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART). She was diagnosed using two of the same brand RDT at her local clinic. Case 2 is a 21-year-old female who presented to obstetric admissions in labour. Case 3 is a 39-year-old female who was screened for HIV during a routine antenatal appointment. Case 4 is a 22-year-old female who was admitted 21 days postpartum with puerperal sepsis. All four cases had discordant RDTs when screened for HIV at our facility.
Management and outcome: The results of all the investigations conducted on all four patients confirmed HIV negative status. The reference laboratory verified the results and reran the RDTs, which remained discordant. This confirmed a false-positive result in all four cases with the screening RDT.
Conclusion: With high numbers tested and a low yield of new cases, each individual case of discordancy may cause unnecessary distress, confusion and treatment, particularly in high-risk scenarios like pregnancy. Trends of false-positive and discordant RDT results should be monitored and inform HTS guidelines.
