Specificity of four laboratory approaches for cross-sectional HIV incidence determination: analysis of samples from adults with known nonrecent HIV infection from five African countries
- PMID: 22283149
- PMCID: PMC3448109
- DOI: 10.1089/aid.2011.0341
Specificity of four laboratory approaches for cross-sectional HIV incidence determination: analysis of samples from adults with known nonrecent HIV infection from five African countries
Abstract
Assays to determine cross-sectional HIV incidence misclassify some individuals with nonrecent HIV infection as recently infected, overestimating HIV incidence. We analyzed factors associated with false-recent misclassification in five African countries. Samples from 2197 adults from Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda who were HIV infected > 12 months were tested using the (1) BED capture enzyme immunoassay (BED), (2) avidity assay, (3) BED and avidity assays with higher assay cutoffs (BED+ avidity screen), and (4) multiassay algorithm (MAA) that includes the BED+ avidity screen, CD4 cell count, and HIV viral load. Logistic regression identified factors associated with misclassification. False-recent misclassification rates and 95% confidence intervals were BED alone: 7.6% (6.6, 8.8); avidity assay alone: 3.5% (2.7, 4.3); BED+ avidity screen: 2.2% (1.7, 2.9); and MAA: 1.2% (0.8, 1.8). The misclassification rate for the MAA was significantly lower than the rates for the other three methods (each p < 0.05). Misclassification rates were lower when the analysis was limited to subtype C-endemic countries, with the lowest rate obtained for the MAA [0.8% (0.2, 1.9)]. Factors associated with misclassification were for BED alone: country of origin, antiretroviral treatment (ART), viral load, and CD4 cell count; for avidity assay alone: country of origin; for BED+ avidity screen: country of origin and ART. No factors were associated with misclassification using the MAA. In a multivariate model, these associations remained significant with one exception: the association of ART with misclassification was completely attenuated. A MAA that included CD4 cell count and viral load had lower false-recent misclassification than the BED or avidity assays (alone or in combination). Studies are underway to compare the sensitivity of these methods for detection of recent HIV infection.
References
-
- Brookmeyer R. Measuring the HIV/AIDS epidemic: Approaches and challenges. Epidemiol Rev. 2010;32:26–37. - PubMed
-
- Murphy G. Parry JV. Assays for the detection of recent infections with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Euro Surveill. 2008;13:18966. - PubMed
-
- Busch MP. Pilcher CD. Mastro TD. Kaldor J. Vercauteren G. Rodriguez W, et al. Beyond detuning: 10 years of progress and new challenges in the development and application of assays for HIV incidence estimation. AIDS. 2010;24:2763–2771. - PubMed
-
- Masciotra S. Dobbs T. Candal D. Hanson D. Delaney K. Rudolph D, et al. Antibody avidity-based assay for identifying recent HIV-1 infections based on Genetic Systems TM 1/2 plus O EIA. 17th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Abstract 937; San Francisco, CA. Feb 16–19;2010 .
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
