ArticleMedical microbiology and immunology2019
Discrimination between recent and non-recent HIV infections using routine diagnostic serological assays.
Article in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in a State-Wide Strategy of HIV-1 Surveillance: Impact of the SARS-COV-2 Pandemic on HIV-1 Diagnosis and Transmission.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2023Observational
- Re-assessing the late HIV diagnosis surveillance definition in the era of increased and frequent testing.HIV medicine · 2022Article
- How Can Progress Toward Ending the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic in the United States Be Monitored?Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
- Article
- Monitoring Recently Acquired HIV Infections in Amsterdam, The Netherlands: The Attribution of Test Locations.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2021Article
- Estimated dates of detectable infection (EDDIs) as an improvement upon Fiebig staging for HIV infection dating.Epidemiology and infection · 2020Article
- Challenges to the performance of current HIV diagnostic assays and the need for centralized specimen archives: a review of the Consortium for the Evaluation and Performance of HIV Incidence Assays (CEPHIA) repository.Gates open research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The suitability of routine diagnostic HIV assays to accurately discriminate between recent and non-recent HIV infections has not been fully investigated. The aim of this study was to compare an established HIV recency assay, the Sedia limiting antigen HIV avidity assay (LAg), with the diagnostic assays; Abbott ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo and INNO-LIA HIV line assays. Samples from all new HIV diagnoses in Ireland from January to December 2016 (n = 455) were tested. An extended logistic regression model, the Spiegelhalter-Knill-Jones method, was utilised to establish a scoring system to predict recency of HIV infection. As proof of concept, 50 well-characterised samples were obtained from the CEPHIA repository whose stage of infection was blinded to the authors, which were tested and analysed. The proportion of samples that were determined as recent was 18.1% for LAg, 6.4% with the ARCHITECT, and 14.5% in the INNO-LIA assay. There was a significant correlation between the ARCHITECT S/CO values and the LAg results, r = 0.717, p < 0.001. ROC analysis revealed that an ARCHITECT S/CO < 250 had a sensitivity and specificity of 90.32% and 89.83%, respectively. Combining the Abbott ARCHITECT HIV Ag/Ab Combo assay and INNO-LIA HIV assays resulted in an observed risk of being recent of 100%. Analysis of the CEPHIA samples revealed a strong agreement between the LAg assay and the combination of routine assays (κ = 0.908, p < 0.001). Our findings provide evidence that assays routinely employed to diagnose and confirm HIV infection may be utilised to determine the recency of HIV infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30859301What 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.