Dataset Information

Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Two 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. METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:The 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. CONCLUSIONS:Differences 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.

SUBMITTER: Sempa JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6660077 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance.

Sempa Joseph B JB Welte Alex A Busch Michael P MP Hall Jake J Hampton Dylan D Facente Shelley N SN Keating Sheila M SM Marson Kara K Parkin Neil N Pilcher Christopher D CD Murphy Gary G Grebe Eduard E

PloS one 20190726 7

<h4>Background</h4>Two 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.<h4>Methods</h4>We ran both assays on a panel of 2,500 well-characterized HIV-1-infected specimens. We analysed concordance of assay results, assessed reproducib ...[more]

PMID: 31348809

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate and practical biologic tools to estimate HIV incidence is crucial to better monitor the epidemic and evaluate the effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment programs.MethodsWe evaluated two avidity assays to measure recent HIV infection: the Sedia HIV-1 LAg-Avidity EIA (Sedia Biosciences, Portland) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Mississauga, ON). Longitudinal specimens (n = 473) obtained from 123 treatment-naive seroconverted individuals enrolled in the Primary HIV-1 Infection (PHI) cohort of Quebec were used to determine the average time an individual is considered to be recently infected (mean duration of recent infection; MDRI), for the two avidity assays alone and in combination using a nonparametric survival method analysis. A total of 420 specimens from individuals with established HIV infection (90 individuals from the PHI cohort of Quebec and 330 individuals from the Laboratoire de santé publique du Quebec (LSPQ) serobank) were also tested to investigate false recency rate (FRR).ResultsThe CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity gave an estimated MDRI of 234 days (95% CI 220-249) at the avidity index cutoff of 30% while the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay gave an estimated MDRI of 120 days (95% CI 109-132) at the normalized optical density (ODn) cutoff of 1.5. The FRR among individuals with established HIV infection was 10.2% (7.5%-13.5%) with the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay as compared to 6.0% (3.9%-8.7%) with the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay. When optimizing a multiassay algorithm (MAA) that includes sequentially the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay then the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay EIA (avidity index/ODn: 30%/1.7), the MDRI was 136 days (95% CI 123-148) and the FRR, 3.3% (95% CI 1.8-5.6).ConclusionMultiassay algorithms that include the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay and the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay performed better than each avidity assay alone. Such 2-assay algorithm that starts with the CDC-modified Bio-Rad-Avidity assay followed by the Sedia-LAg-Avidity assay allowed a better classification of HIV-1 infections.

Project description:Laboratory assays for identifying recent HIV-1 infections are widely used for estimating incidence in cross-sectional population-level surveys in global HIV-1surveillance. Adequate assay and laboratory performance are required to ensure accurate incidence estimates. The NIAID-supported External Quality Assurance Program Oversight Laboratory (EQAPOL) established a proficiency testing program for the most widely-used incidence assay, the HIV-1 Limiting Antigen Avidity EIA (LAg), with US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-approved kits manufactured by Sedia Biosciences Corporation and Maxim Biomedical. The objective of this program is to monitor the performance of participating laboratories. Four rounds of blinded external proficiency (EP) panels were distributed to up to twenty testing sites (7 North American, 5 African, 4 Asian, 2 South American and 2 European). These panels consisted of ten plasma samples: three blinded well-characterized HIV-1-seropositive samples that were included as replicates and an HIV-negative control. The seropositive samples spanned the dynamic range of the assay and are categorized as either recent or long-term infection. Participating sites performed the assay according to manufacturers' instructions and completed an online survey to gather information on kit manufacturer, lot of kit used, laboratory procedures and the experience of technicians. On average, fifteen sites participated in each round of testing, with an average of four sites testing with only the Maxim assay, seven testing with only the Sedia assay and five sites utilizing both assays. Overall, the Sedia and Maxim assays yielded similar infection status categorization across the laboratories; however, for most of the nine HIV+ samples tested, there were significant differences in the optical density readouts, ODn (N = 8) and OD (N = 7), between LAg kit manufacturers (p < 0.05 based on mixed effects models. The EQAPOL LAg program is important for monitoring laboratory performance as well as detecting variations between manufacturers of HIV-1incidence assays.

Project description:IntroductionHIV incidence estimates are important to characterize the status of an epidemic, identify locations and populations at high risk and to guide and evaluate HIV prevention interventions. We used the limiting antigen avidity assay (LAg) as part of a recent infection testing algorithm to estimate HIV incidence in the Akwa Ibom AIDS Indicator Survey (AKAIS), Nigeria.MethodsIn 2017, AKAIS, a cross-sectional population-based study was conducted at the household (HH) level in 31 local government areas (LGAs) of Akwa Ibom state. Of the 8963 participants aged ≥15 years who were administered questionnaires for demographic and behavioural data, 8306 consented to HIV rapid testing. Whole-blood specimens were collected from 394 preliminary HIV-seropositive individuals for CD4+ cell count determination and plasma storage. Samples were shipped to a central quality laboratory for HIV confirmatory testing and viral load determination. A total of 370 HIV-positive specimens were tested for the recent HIV infection using the LAg assay.ResultsOf the 8306 consenting adults, the HIV prevalence was 4.8%. Of the 370 HIV-positive samples tested for HIV recency, the median age was 35 years, 48.8% had CD4+ cell count >500/mm3 and 81.3% was not virally suppressed. Viral suppression was greater among females (21%) than for males (13%). A total of 11 specimens were classified as recent based on the LAg assay and HIV viral load ≥1000 copies/mL. The weighted, adjusted HIV-1 incidence was 0.41/100 person-years (95% CI 0.16 to 0.66); translating to 13,000 new cases of HIV infections annually in Akwa Ibom, a state with a population of 5.5 million. The HIV incidence rate was similar in females and males (0.41% and 0.42% respectively). The incidence rate was the highest among participants aged 15 to 49 years (0.44%, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.74) translating to 11,000 new infections annually, about 85% of all new infections in the state.ConclusionsThe finding of the high HIV incidence among the 15 to 49-year age group calls for renewed and innovative efforts to prevent HIV infection among young adults in Akwa Ibom state.

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:IntroductionThe need for detection of new and recent HIV infections is essential for surveillance and assessing interventions in controlling the epidemic. HIV recency assays are one way of providing reliable incidence estimates by determining recent versus non-recent infection. The objective of this study was to review the current body of knowledge of the limiting antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay to expand supported applications through an assessment of what is known and the gaps.MethodsA search for peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection was conducted using the search term "human immunodeficiency virus and avidity". Non-peer reviewed published reports from the Population-based HIV Impact Assessment Project were also included. These were limited to literature published in English between January 2010 and August 2021.ResultsThis search resulted in 2080 publications and 14 reports, with 137 peer-reviewed studies and 14 non-peer reviewed reports that met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total of 151 studies for the final review. There were similar findings among studies that compared the performances of assay manufacturers and sample types. Studies that evaluated various assay algorithms and thresholds were heterogeneous, illustrating the need for context-specific test characteristics for classifying recent infections. Most studies estimated subtype-specific test characteristics for HIV subtypes A, B, C, and D. This was further illustrated when looking only at studies that compared HIV incidence estimates from recency assay algorithms and longitudinal cohorts.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that the current body of knowledge provides important information that contributes towards distinguishing recent and non-recent infection and incidence estimation. However, there are knowledge gaps with respect to factors that influence the test characteristics (e.g., HIV-1 subtype, population characteristics, assay algorithms and thresholds). Further studies are needed to estimate and establish context-specific test characteristics that consider these influencing factors to improve and expand the use of this assay for detection of recent HIV infection.

Dataset Information

Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance.

Publications

Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets