ArticleAIDS (London, England)2014
Incorrect identification of recent HIV infection in adults in the United States using a limiting-antigen avidity assay.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for identifying individuals with recent HIV infection: HPTN 071 (PopART).PloS one · 2021Trial
- Brief Report: Impact of Early Antiretroviral Therapy on the Performance of HIV Rapid Tests and HIV Incidence Assays.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Development of a multiassay algorithm (MAA) to identify recent HIV infection in newly diagnosed individuals in Indonesia.iScience · 2023Article
- High Genetic Diversity of HIV-1 and Active Transmission Clusters among Male-to-Male Sexual Contacts (MMSCs) in Zhuhai, China.Viruses · 2023Article
- Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in settings with universal antiretroviral treatment.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- A systematic review of limiting antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay for detection of recent HIV-1 infection to expand supported applications.Journal of virus eradication · 2022Review
- Validation of population-level HIV-1 incidence estimation by cross-sectional incidence assays in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2021Article
- Estimating HIV incidence in the Akwa Ibom AIDS indicator survey (AKAIS), Nigeria using the limiting antigen avidity recency assay.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2021Article
- Impact of Early Antiretroviral Treatment Initiation on Performance of Cross-Sectional Incidence Assays.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2020Article
- The concordance of the limiting antigen and the Bio-Rad avidity assays in persons from Estonia infected mainly with HIV-1 CRF06_cpx.PloS one · 2019Article
- Short Communication: Dried Blood Spots Stored at Room Temperature Should Not Be Used for HIV Incidence Testing.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2018Article
- Cross-Sectional HIV Incidence Estimation with Missing Biomarkers.Statistical communications in infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Comparison of Self-report to Biomarkers of Recent HIV Infection: Findings from the START Trial.AIDS and behavior · 2018Article
- Article
- Decision tree for accurate infection timing in individuals newly diagnosed with HIV-1 infection.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Weak HIV Antibody Responses in Perinatally Infected Young Adults: Weak HIV Antibody Responses in Perinatally Infected Adults.The Pediatric infectious disease journal · 2017Article
- Short Communication: False Recent Ratio of the Limiting-Antigen Avidity Assay and Viral Load Testing Algorithm Among Cameroonians with Long-Term HIV Infection.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2017Article
- HIV Antibody Level as a Marker of HIV Persistence and Low-Level Viral Replication.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Short Communication: The Impact of Viral Suppression and Viral Breakthrough on Limited-Antigen Avidity Assay Results in Individuals with Clade B HIV Infection.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate factors associated with misclassification by the limiting-antigen avidity (LAg-avidity) assay among individuals with long-standing HIV infection.
designSamples were obtained from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study and AIDS Linked to the IntraVenous Experience cohort (1089 samples from 667 individuals, 595 samples collected 2-4 years and 494 samples collected 4-8 years after HIV seroconversion). Paired samples from both time points were available for 422 (63.3%) of the 667 individuals.
methodsSamples were considered to be misclassified if the LAg-avidity assay result was 1.5 or less normalized optical density (OD-n) units.
resultsOverall, 4.8% (52/1089) of the samples were misclassified, including 1.8% [16/884, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-3.06%] of samples from individuals with viral loads above 400 copies/ml and 1.4% (10/705) of samples from individuals with viral loads above 400 copies/ml and CD4 cell counts above 200 cells/μl (95% CI 0.68-2.60%). Age, race, sex, and mode of HIV acquisition were not associated with misclassification. In an adjusted analysis, viral load below 400 copies/ml [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.72, 95% CI 1.61-8.57], CD4 cell count below 50 cells/μl (aOR 5.41, 95% CI 1.86-15.74), and low LAg-avidity result (≤1.5 OD-n) from the earlier time point (aOR 5.60, 95% CI 1.55-20.25) were significantly associated with misclassification.
conclusionsThe manufacturer of the LAg-avidity assay recommends excluding individuals from incidence surveys who are receiving antiretroviral therapy, are elite suppressors, or have AIDS (CD4 cell count <200 cells/μl). The results of this study indicate that those exclusions do not remove all sources of assay misclassification among individuals with long-standing HIV infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.