Dataset Information

Independent assessment of candidate HIV incidence assays on specimens in the CEPHIA repository.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Cross-sectional HIV incidence surveillance, using assays that distinguish 'recent' from 'nonrecent' infections, has been hampered by inadequate performance and characterization of incidence assays. In this study, the Consortium for the Evaluation and Performance of HIV Incidence Assays presents results of the first independent evaluation of five incidence assays (BED, Limiting Antigen Avidity, Less-sensitive Vitros, Vitros Avidity and BioRad Avidity).

Design

A large repository of diverse specimens from HIV-positive patients was established, multiple assays were run on 2500 selected specimens, and data were analyzed to estimate assay characteristics relevant for incidence surveillance.

Methods

The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI, average time 'recent' while infected for less than some time cut-off T) was estimated from longitudinal data on seroconverters by regression. The false-recent rate (FRR, probability of testing 'recent' when infected for longer than T) was explored by measuring the proportions of 'recent' results in various subsets of patients.

Results

Assays continue to fail to attain the simultaneously large MDRI and small FRR demanded by existing performance guidelines. All assays produce high FRRs amongst virally suppressed patients (>40%), including elite controllers and treated patients.

Conclusions

Results from this first independent evaluation provide valuable information about the current performance of assays, and suggest the need for further optimization. Variation of 'recent'/'nonrecent' thresholds and the use of multiple antibody-maturation assays, as well as other biomarkers, can now be explored, using the rich data generated by the Consortium for the Evaluation and Performance of HIV Incidence Assays. Consistently high FRRs amongst those virally suppressed suggest that viral load will be a particularly valuable supplementary marker.

SUBMITTER: Kassanjee R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4210690 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Independent assessment of candidate HIV incidence assays on specimens in the CEPHIA repository.

Kassanjee Reshma R Pilcher Christopher D CD Keating Sheila M SM Facente Shelley N SN McKinney Elaine E Price Matthew A MA Martin Jeffrey N JN Little Susan S Hecht Frederick M FM Kallas Esper G EG Welte Alex A Busch Michael P MP Murphy Gary G

AIDS (London, England) 20141001 16

<h4>Objective</h4>Cross-sectional HIV incidence surveillance, using assays that distinguish 'recent' from 'nonrecent' infections, has been hampered by inadequate performance and characterization of incidence assays. In this study, the Consortium for the Evaluation and Performance of HIV Incidence Assays presents results of the first independent evaluation of five incidence assays (BED, Limiting Antigen Avidity, Less-sensitive Vitros, Vitros Avidity and BioRad Avidity).<h4>Design</h4>A large repo ...[more]

PMID: 25144218

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: New challenges for diagnosis of HIV infection abound, including the impact on key viral and immunological markers of HIV vaccine studies, pre-exposure prophylaxis usage and breakthrough infections, and very early initiation of anti-retroviral treatment. These challenges impact the performance of current diagnostic assays, and require suitable specimens for development and evaluation. In this article we review and describe an archive developed by the Consortium for the Evaluation and Performance of HIV Incidence Assays (CEPHIA), in order to identify the critical features required to create a centralized specimen archive to support these current and future developments. Review and Findings: We review and describe the CEPHIA repository, a large, consolidated repository comprised of over 31,000 highly-selected plasma samples and other body fluid specimen types, with over 50 purposely designed specimen panels distributed to 19 groups since 2012. The CEPHIA repository provided financial return on investment, supported the standardization of HIV incidence assays, and informed guidance and standards set by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS. Unified data from extensively characterized specimens has allowed this resource to support biomarker discovery, assay optimization, and development of new strategies for estimating duration of HIV infection. Critical features of a high-value repository include 1) extensively-characterized samples, 2) high-quality clinical background data, 3) multiple collaborations facilitating ongoing sample replenishment, and 4) sustained history of high-level specimen utilization. Conclusion: With strong governance and leadership, a large consolidated archive of samples from multiple studies provides investigators and assay developers with easy access to diverse samples designed to address challenges associated with HIV diagnosis, helping to enable improvements to HIV diagnostic assays and ultimately elimination of HIV. Its creation and ongoing utilization should compel funders, institutions and researchers to address and improve upon current approaches to sharing specimens.

Project description:BackgroundHIV assays designed to detect recent infection, also known as "recency assays," are often used to estimate HIV incidence in a specific country, region, or subpopulation, alone or as part of recent infection testing algorithms (RITAs). Recently, many countries and organizations have become interested in using recency assays within case surveillance systems and routine HIV testing services to measure other indicators beyond incidence, generally referred to as "non-incidence surveillance use cases."ObjectiveThis review aims to identify published evidence that can be used to validate methodological approaches to recency-based incidence estimation and non-incidence use cases. The evidence identified through this review will be used in the forthcoming technical guidance by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) on the use of HIV recency assays for identification of epidemic trends, whether for HIV incidence estimation or non-incidence indicators of recency.MethodsTo identify the best methodological and field implementation practices for the use of recency assays to estimate HIV incidence and trends in recent infections for specific populations or geographic areas, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to (1) understand the use of recency testing for surveillance in programmatic and laboratory settings, (2) review methodologies for implementing recency testing for both incidence estimation and non-incidence use cases, and (3) assess the field performance characteristics of commercially available recency assays.ResultsAmong the 167 documents included in the final review, 91 (54.5%) focused on assay or algorithm performance or methodological descriptions, with high-quality evidence of accurate age- and sex-disaggregated HIV incidence estimation at national or regional levels in general population settings, but not at finer geographic levels for prevention prioritization. The remaining 76 (45.5%) described the field use of incidence assays including field-derived incidence (n=45), non-incidence (n=25), and both incidence and non-incidence use cases (n=6). The field use of incidence assays included integrating RITAs into routine surveillance and assisting with molecular genetic analyses, but evidence was generally weaker or only reported on what was done, without validation data or findings related to effectiveness of using non-incidence indicators calculated through the use of recency assays as a proxy for HIV incidence.ConclusionsHIV recency assays have been widely validated for estimating HIV incidence in age- and sex-specific populations at national and subnational regional levels; however, there is a lack of evidence validating the accuracy and effectiveness of using recency assays to identify epidemic trends in non-incidence surveillance use cases. More research is needed to validate the use of recency assays within HIV testing services, to ensure findings can be accurately interpreted to guide prioritization of public health programming.

Project description:IntroductionCross-sectional incidence testing is used to estimate population-level HIV incidence and measure the impact of prevention interventions. There are limited data evaluating the accuracy of estimates in settings where antiretroviral therapy coverage and levels of viral suppression are high. Understanding cross-sectional incidence estimates in these settings is important as viral suppression can lead to false recent test results. We compared the accuracy of multi-assay algorithms (MAA) for incidence estimation to that observed in the community-randomized HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, where the majority of participants with HIV infection were virally suppressed.MethodsHIV incidence was assessed during the second year of the study, and included only individuals who were tested for HIV at visits 1 and 2 years after the start of the study (2016-2017). Incidence estimates from three MAAs were compared to the observed incidence between years 1 and 2 (MAA-C: LAg-Avidity <2.8 ODn + BioRad Avidity Index <95% + VL >400 copies/ml; LAg+VL MAA: LAg-Avidity <1.5 ODn + VL >1000 copies/ml; Rapid+VL MAA: Asanté recent rapid result + VL >1000 copies/ml). The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) used for the three MAAs was 248, 130 and 180 days, respectively.Results and discussionThe study consisted of: 15,845 HIV-negative individuals; 4406 HIV positive at both visits; and 221 who seroconverted between visits. Viral load (VL) data were available for all HIV-positive participants at the 2-year visit. Sixty four (29%) of the seroconverters and 3227 (72%) prevelant positive participants were virally supressed (<400 copies/ml). Observed HIV incidence was 1.34% (95% CI: 1.17-1.53). Estimates of incidence were similar to observed incidence for MAA-C, 1.26% (95% CI: 1.02-1.51) and the LAg+VL MAA, 1.29 (95% CI: 0.97-1.62). Incidence estimated by the Rapid+VL MAA was significantly lower than observed incidence (0.92%, 95% CI: 0.69-1.15, p<0.01).ConclusionsMAA-C and the LAg+VL MAA provided accurate point estimates of incidence in this cohort with high levels of viral suppression. The Rapid+VL significantly underestimated incidence, suggesting that the MDRI recommended by the manufacturer is too long or the assay is not accurately detecting enough recent infections.

Project description:BackgroundTwo manufacturers, Maxim Biomedical and Sedia Biosciences Corporation, supply CDC-approved versions of the HIV-1 Limiting Antigen Avidity EIA (LAg) for detecting 'recent' HIV infection in cross-sectional incidence estimation. This study assesses and compares the performance of the two assays for incidence surveillance.MethodsWe ran both assays on a panel of 2,500 well-characterized HIV-1-infected specimens. We analysed concordance of assay results, assessed reproducibility using repeat testing and estimated mean durations of recent infection (MDRIs) and false-recent rates (FRRs) for a range of normalized optical density (ODn) thresholds, alone and in combination with viral load thresholds. We defined three hypothetical surveillance scenarios, similar to the Kenyan and South African epidemics, and a concentrated epidemic. These scenarios allowed us to evaluate the precision of incidence estimates obtained by means of various recent infection testing algorithms (RITAs) based on each of the two assays.ResultsThe Maxim assay produced lower ODn values than the Sedia assay on average, largely as a result of higher calibrator readings (mean OD of 0.749 vs. 0.643), with correlation of normalized readings lower (R2 = 0.908 vs. R2 = 0.938). Reproducibility on blinded control specimens was slightly better for Maxim. The MDRI of a Maxim-based algorithm at the 'standard' threshold (ODn ≤1.5 & VL >1,000) was 201 days (95% CI: 180,223) and for Sedia 171 (152,191). The difference Differences in MDRI were estimated at 32.7 (22.9,42.8) and 30.9 days (21.7,40.7) for the two algorithms, respectively. Commensurately, the Maxim algorithm had a higher FRR in treatment-naive subjects (1.7% vs. 1.1%). The two assays produced similar precision of incidence estimates in the three surveillance scenarios.ConclusionsDifferences between the assays can be primarily attributed to the calibrators supplied by the manufacturers. Performance for surveillance was extremely similar, although different thresholds were optimal (i.e. produced the lowest variance of incidence estimates) and at any given ODn threshold, different estimates of MDRI and FRR were obtained. The two assays cannot be treated as interchangeable: assay and algorithm-specific performance characteristic estimates must be used for survey planning and incidence estimation.

Project description:In South Africa where the prevalence of HIV infection is very high, 4th generation HIV antibody/p24 antigen combo immunoassays are the tests of choice for laboratory based screening. Testing is usually performed in clinical pathology laboratories on automated analysers. To investigate the cause of false positive results on 4th generation HIV testing platforms in public sector laboratories, the performance of two automated platforms was compared in a clinical pathology setting, firstly on routine diagnostic specimens and secondly on known sero-negative samples.Firstly, 1181 routine diagnostic specimens were sequentially tested on Siemens and Roche automated 4th generation platforms. HIV viral load, western blot and follow up testing were used to determine the true status of inconclusive specimens. Subsequently, known HIV seronegative samples from a single donor were repeatedly tested on both platforms and an analyser was tested for surface contamination with HIV positive serum to identify how suspected specimen contamination could be occurring.Serial testing of diagnostic specimens yielded 163 weakly positive or discordant results. Only 3 of 163 were conclusively shown to indicate true HIV infection. Specimen contamination with HIV antibody was suspected, based on the following evidence: the proportion of positive specimens increased on repeated passage through the analysers; viral loads were low or undetectable and western blots negative or indeterminate on problem specimens; screen negative, 2nd test positive specimens tested positive when reanalysed on the screening assay; follow up specimens (where available) were negative. Similarly, an increasing number of known negative specimens became (repeatedly) sero-positive on serial passage through one of the analysers. Internal and external analyser surfaces were contaminated with HIV serum, evidence that sample splashes occur during testing.Due to the extreme sensitivity of these assays, contamination with minute amounts of HIV antibody can cause a negative sample to test positive. Better contamination control measures are needed on analysers used in clinical pathology environments, especially in regions where HIV sero-prevalence is high.

Dataset Information

Independent assessment of candidate HIV incidence assays on specimens in the CEPHIA repository.

Objective

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Independent assessment of candidate HIV incidence assays on specimens in the CEPHIA repository.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets