Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance
Open Access
- 26 July 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 14 (7), e0220345
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220345
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 (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.Funding Information
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1017716)
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1062806)
- Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1115799)
- National Institute of Health (R34 MH096606)
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Moving towards a reliable HIV incidence test – current status, resources available, future directions and challenges aheadEpidemiology and Infection, 2016
- Development of a New Limiting-Antigen Avidity Dot Immuno-Gold Filtration Assay for HIV-1 IncidencePLOS ONE, 2016
- Recalibration of the Limiting Antigen Avidity EIA to Determine Mean Duration of Recent Infection in Divergent HIV-1 SubtypesPLOS ONE, 2015
- Short Communication: Defining Optimality of a Test for Recent Infection for HIV Incidence SurveillanceAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 2014
- A General HIV Incidence Inference Scheme Based on Likelihood of Individual Level Data and a Population Renewal EquationPLOS ONE, 2012
- Detection of Recent HIV-1 Infection Using a New Limiting-Antigen Avidity Assay: Potential for HIV-1 Incidence Estimates and Avidity Maturation StudiesPLOS ONE, 2012
- Beyond detuning: 10 years of progress and new challenges in the development and application of assays for HIV incidence estimationAIDS, 2010
- A Comparison of Biomarker Based Incidence EstimatorsPLOS ONE, 2009
- Comparison of HIV Type 1 Incidence Observed during Longitudinal Follow-Up with Incidence Estimated by Cross-Sectional Analysis Using the BED Capture Enzyme ImmunoassayAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 2006
- Estimation of Current Human Immunodeficiency Virus Incidence Rates from a Cross-Sectional Survey Using Early Diagnostic TestsAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1995