Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance
Author: 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.
Murphy, Gary
Grebe, Eduard
Naniche, Denise
CEPHIA (Consortium for the Evaluation and Performance of HIV Incidence Assays)
Keywords: VIH (Virus)
Marcadors bioquímics
HIV (Viruses)
Biochemical markers
Issue Date: 26-Jul-2019
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
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.
Note: Reproducció del document publicat a:
It is part of: PLoS ONE, 2019, vol. 14, num. 7, p. e0220345
Related resource:
ISSN: 1932-6203
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (ISGlobal)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
SempaJB_PLoSOne_2019.pdf1.03 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons