Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
14
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
Autores
SEMPA, Joseph B.
WELTE, Alex
BUSCH, Michael P.
HALL, Jake
HAMPTON, Dylan
FACENTE, Shelley N.
KEATING, Sheila M.
MARSON, Kara
PARKIN, Neil
PILCHER, Christopher D.
Citação
PLOS ONE, v.14, n.7, article ID e0220345, 17p, 2019
Resumo
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 (R-2 = 0.908 vs. R-2 = 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.
Palavras-chave
Referências
- BROOKMEYER R, 1995, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V141, P166, DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117404
- Busch MP, 2010, AIDS, V24, P2763, DOI 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32833f1142
- Duke Human Vaccine Institute, 2019, EQAPOL LIM ANT LAG A
- Duong YT, 2015, PLOS ONE, V10, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0114947
- Duong YT, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033328
- Gao ZY, 2016, PLOS ONE, V11, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0161183
- Grebe E, 2018, BIORXIV
- Grebe E, 2018, PLOS ONE, V13, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0203638
- Grebe E, 2017, JAIDS-J ACQ IMM DEF, V76, P547, DOI [10.1097/QAI.0000000000001537, 10.1097/qai.0000000000001537]
- Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), 2018, 5 S AFR NAT HIV PREV
- Kassanjee R, 2016, AIDS, V30, P2361, DOI 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001209
- Kassanjee R, 2014, AIDS, V28, P2439, DOI 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000429
- Kassanjee R, 2014, AIDS RES HUM RETROV, V30, P45, DOI [10.1089/aid.2013.0113, 10.1089/AID.2013.0113]
- Kassanjee R, 2012, EPIDEMIOLOGY, V23, P721, DOI 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182576c07
- Mahiane GS, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0044377
- Maxim Biomedical, 2013, MAXIM BIOMEDICAL MAX
- McDougal JS, 2006, AIDS RES HUM RETROV, V22, P945, DOI 10.1089/aid.2006.22.945
- McWalter TA, 2009, PLOS ONE, V4, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0007368
- Ministry of Health Malawi, 2018, MAL POP BAS HIV IMP
- Ministry of Health Zambia, 2019, ZAMB POP BAS HIV IMP
- Murphy G, 2017, EPIDEMIOL INFECT, V145, P925, DOI 10.1017/S0950268816002910
- Schlusser KE, 2017, AIDS RES HUM RETROV, V33, P555, DOI 10.1089/aid.2016.0245
- Schlusser KE, 2017, PLOS ONE, V12, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0172283
- Sedia Biosciences Corporation, 2016, SED HIV 1 LAG AV EIA
- World Health Organisation, 2017, HIV DRUG RES REP 201