ArticleAIDS research and human retroviruses2016
Development and Evaluation of a Modified Fourth-Generation Human Immunodeficiency Virus Enzyme Immunoassay for Cross-Sectional Incidence Estimation in Clade B Populations.
Article in AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Use of HIV Recency Assays for HIV Incidence Estimation and Other Surveillance Use Cases: Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Pooled it
- The HIV Genomic Incidence Assay Meets False Recency Rate and Mean Duration of Recency Infection Performance Standards.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate methods for cross-sectional incidence estimation are needed for HIV surveillance and prevention research. We developed an avidity assay based on the fourth-generation Genetic Systems HIV Combo Ag/Ab EIA (Bio-Rad Combo assay) and evaluated its performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Bio-Rad Combo assay was modified incubating samples with and without 0.025 M diethylamine (DEA). The avidity index (AI) was calculated as the ratio of the DEA-treated to untreated result for a specific sample. We analyzed 2,140 samples from 808 individuals from the United States with known duration of HIV infection. The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) and the false-recent rate (FRR, fraction of samples from individuals known to be infected >2 years misclassified as recent) were calculated for AI cutoffs of 20%-90% for the avidity assay alone and in combination with a viral load assay (VL, limit of detection 400 copies/ml). Factors associated with misclassification of samples collected ≥2 years after infections were also evaluated.
resultsThe MDRI for the Bio-Rad Combo Avidity assay ranged from 50 days using an AI cutoff of 20% to 276 days using an AI cutoff of 90%; the FRR ranged from 0% to 9%. When samples with a VL <400 copies/ml were classified as nonrecent, the FRRs were reduced approximately twofold and the MDRI estimates were reduced by ∼20%. An AI cutoff of 50% provided an MDRI of 135 days with an FRR of 2.1%. All samples from elite suppressors had an AI >80%. In adjusted analysis, viral suppression and low CD4 cell count were significantly associated with misclassification among individuals infected >2 years.
conclusionsThis modified Bio-Rad Combo Avidity assay may be a useful tool for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation. Further research is needed to evaluate use of this assay in combination with other assays to accurately estimate population-level HIV incidence.
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.