Discrimination between recent and non-recent HIV infections using routine diagnostic serological assays
- 198 Downloads
The suitability of routine diagnostic HIV assays to accurately discriminate between recent and non-recent HIV infections has not been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to compare an established HIV recency assay, the Sedia limiting antigen HIV avidity assay (LAg), with the diagnostic assays; Abbott ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo and INNO-LIA HIV line assays. Samples from all new HIV diagnoses in Ireland from January to December 2016 (n = 455) were tested. An extended logistic regression model, the Spiegelhalter–Knill–Jones method, was utilised to establish a scoring system to predict recency of HIV infection. As proof of concept, 50 well-characterised samples were obtained from the CEPHIA repository whose stage of infection was blinded to the authors, which were tested and analysed. The proportion of samples that were determined as recent was 18.1% for LAg, 6.4% with the ARCHITECT, and 14.5% in the INNO-LIA assay. There was a significant correlation between the ARCHITECT S/CO values and the LAg results, r = 0.717, p < 0.001. ROC analysis revealed that an ARCHITECT S/CO < 250 had a sensitivity and specificity of 90.32% and 89.83%, respectively. Combining the Abbott ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay and INNO-LIA HIV assays resulted in an observed risk of being recent of 100%. Analysis of the CEPHIA samples revealed a strong agreement between the LAg assay and the combination of routine assays (κ = 0.908, p < 0.001). Our findings provide evidence that assays routinely employed to diagnose and confirm HIV infection may be utilised to determine the recency of HIV infection.
KeywordsHIV infection Recency Routine diagnostic assays
Concept and design of the study: JH and JM; acquisition of data: JH and JM, statistical analysis: JH and OM; interpretation of data and drafting the manuscript: JH and JC; critical revision of the manuscript: CDG and GM.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 3.Schüpbach J, Gebhardt MD, Scherrer AU et al (2013) Simple estimation of incident HIV infection rates in notification cohorts based on window periods of algorithms for evaluation of line-immunoassay result patterns. PLoS One 8(8):e71662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071662 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 6.Schüpbach J, Niederhauser C, Yerly S et al (2015) Decreasing proportion of recent infections among newly diagnosed HIV-1 cases in Switzerland, 2008 to 2013 based on line-immunoassay-based algorithms. PLoS One 10(7):e0131828. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131828 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Parekh B, Duong Y, Mavengere Y et al (2012) Performance of new LAg-Avidity EIA to measure HIV-1 incidence in a cross-sectional population: Swaziland HIV Incidence Measurement Survey (SHIMS). In: XIX international AIDS conference. Washington DC. July 22–27, Abstract #LBPE27Google Scholar
- 10.Schwarcz S, Kellogg T, McFarland W et al (2001) Differences in the temporal trends of HIV seroincidence and seroprevalence among sexually transmitted disease clinic patients, 1989–1998: application of the serological testing algorithm for recent HIV seroconversion. Am J Epidemiol 153:925–934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Glese C, Igoe D, Gibbons Z, Hurley C, Stokes S, McNamara S, Ennis O, O’Donnell K, Keenan E, De Gascun C, Lyons F, Ward M, Danis K, Glynn R, Waters A, Fitzgerald M, On behalf of the outbreak control team (2015). Injection of new psychoactive substance snow blow associated with recently acquired HIV infections among homeless people who inject drugs in Dublin, Ireland. Eurosurveillance 20(40):30036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Wendel SK, Longosz AF, Eshleman SH et al (2017) Short communication: the impact of viral suppression and viral breakthrough on limited-antigen avidity assay results in individuals with clade B HIV infection. AIDS Res Hum Retrovirus 33(4):325–327. https://doi.org/10.1089/AID.2016.0105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar