Browsing by Author "Keating, Sheila M."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison of cross-sectional HIV incidence assay results from dried blood spots and plasma
    (Public Library of Science, 2017-02-23) Schlusser, Katherine E.; Pilcher, Christopher; Kallas, Esper G.; Santos, Breno R.; Deeks, Steven G.; Facente, Shelley; Keating, Sheila M.; Busch, Michael P.; Murphy, Gary; Welte, Alex; Quinn, Thomas; Eshleman, Susan H.; Laeyendecker, Oliver
    Background: Assays have been developed for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation using plasma samples. Large scale surveillance programs are planned using dried blood spot (DBS) specimens for incidence assessment. However, limited information exists on the performance of HIV cross-sectional incidence assays using DBS. Methods: The assays evaluated were: Maxim HIV-1 Limiting Antigen Avidity EIA (LAg-Avidity), Sedia HIV-1 BED-Capture EIA (BED-CEIA), and CDC modified BioRad HIV-1/2 Plus O Avidity-based Assay (CDC-BioRad Avidity) using pre-determined cutoff values. 100 matched HIV-1 positive plasma and DBS samples, with known duration of infection, from the Consortium for the Evaluation and Performance of HIV Incidence Assays repository were tested. All assays were run in duplicate. To examine the degree of variability within and between results for each sample type, both categorical and continuous results were analyzed. Associations were assessed with Bland Altman, R2 values and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (ĸ). Results: Intra-assay variability using the same sample type was similar for all assays (R2 0.96 to 1.00). The R2 values comparing DBS and plasma results for LAg-Avidity, BED-CEIA, and CDC-BioRad Avidity were 0.96, 0.94, and 0.84, respectively. The concordance and ĸ values between DBS and plasma for all three assays were >87% and >0.64, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis showed significant differences between plasma and DBS samples. For all three assays, a higher number of samples were classified as recent infections using DBS samples. Conclusions: DBS and plasma sample results were highly correlated. However, when compared to plasma, each assay performed somewhat differently in DBS at the lower and higher ends of the dynamic range. DBS samples were more likely to be classified as recently infected by all three assays, which may lead to overestimation of incidence in surveys using performance criteria derived for plasma samples.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance
    (Public Library of Science, 2019-07-26) 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
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Seroconverting blood donors as a resource for characterising and optimising recent infection testing algorithms for incidence estimation
    (Public Library of Science, 2011-06-09) Kassanjee, Reshma; Welte, Alex; McWalter, Thomas A.; Keating, Sheila M.; Vermeulen, Marion; Stramer, Susan L.; Busch, Michael P.
    Introduction: Biomarker-based cross-sectional incidence estimation requires a Recent Infection Testing Algorithm (RITA) with an adequately large mean recency duration, to achieve reasonable survey counts, and a low false-recent rate, to minimise exposure to further bias and imprecision. Estimating these characteristics requires specimens from individuals with well-known seroconversion dates or confirmed long-standing infection. Specimens with well-known seroconversion dates are typically rare and precious, presenting a bottleneck in the development of RITAs. Methods: The mean recency duration and a 'false-recent rate' are estimated from data on seroconverting blood donors. Within an idealised model for the dynamics of false-recent results, blood donor specimens were used to characterise RITAs by a new method that maximises the likelihood of cohort-level recency classifications, rather than modelling individual sojourn times in recency. Results: For a range of assumptions about the false-recent results (0% to 20% of biomarker response curves failing to reach the threshold distinguishing test-recent and test-non-recent infection), the mean recency duration of the Vironostika-LS ranged from 154 (95% CI: 96-231) to 274 (95% CI: 234-313) days in the South African donor population (n = 282), and from 145 (95% CI: 67-226) to 252 (95% CI: 194-308) days in the American donor population (n = 106). The significance of gender and clade on performance was rejected (p-value = 10%), and utility in incidence estimation appeared comparable to that of a BED-like RITA. Assessment of the Vitros-LS (n = 108) suggested potentially high false-recent rates. Discussion: The new method facilitates RITA characterisation using widely available specimens that were previously overlooked, at the cost of possible artefacts. While accuracy and precision are insufficient to provide estimates suitable for incidence surveillance, a low-cost approach for preliminary assessments of new RITAs has been demonstrated. The Vironostika-LS and Vitros-LS warrant further analysis to provide greater precision of estimates. © 2011 Kassanjee et al.