ArticlePloS one2019
Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for HIV incidence surveillance.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of HIV Recency Assays for HIV Incidence Estimation and Other Surveillance Use Cases: Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Pooled it
- Comparing Approaches for Estimating Counterfactual HIV Incidence Among Populations With High Vulnerability to HIV in Lima, Peru: A Multi-Study Comparative Analysis.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- Longitudinal evaluation of HIV-1 LAg incidence assay and proficiency panel stability for external quality assurance.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Characterization of HIV humoral immunity during analytical treatment interruption.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2026Article
- Addressing Population Heterogeneity for HIV Incidence Estimation Based on Recency Test.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- HIV molecular network in Mexico City (2021-2022): Understanding transmission dynamics through the role of newly diagnosed cases.HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on HIV Testing, Recent Infections, and Annualized Incidence Among Cisgender Men Who Have Sex With Men and Transgender Women in Brazil.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2025Article
- Potential for high dynamic range Sedia Limiting Antigen antibody assay to support viral load monitoring during antiretroviral therapy.PloS one · 2024Article
- Recent HIV infections and estimated HIV incidence among adolescents from key populations.Revista de saude publica · 2024Article
- Recent HIV infection and annualized HIV incidence rates among sexual and gender minorities in Brazil and Peru (ImPrEP seroincidence study): a cross-sectional, multicenter study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2023Article
- Article
- A Stable Dried Tube Specimen for Quality Assurance and Training Programs for HIV Rapid Test for Recent Infection.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- HIV incidence estimation among female sex workers in South Africa: a multiple methods analysis of cross-sectional survey data.The lancet. HIV · 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
- Article
- Microdrop Human Immunodeficiency Virus Sequencing for Incidence and Drug Resistance Surveillance.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Evidence of an untamed HIV epidemic among MSM and TGW in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a 2018 to 2020 cross-sectional study using recent infection testing.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2021Article
- Can HIV recent infection surveillance help us better understand where primary prevention efforts should be targeted? Results of three pilots integrating a recent infection testing algorithm into routine programme activities in Kenya and Zimbabwe.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 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
- Development of an international external quality assurance program for HIV-1 incidence using the Limiting Antigen Avidity assay.PloS one · 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
13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTwo 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsDifferences 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.
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.