| Literature DB >> 27552218 |
Sikhulile Moyo1,2, Alain Vandormael3, Eduan Wilkinson3, Susan Engelbrecht1,4, Simani Gaseitsiwe2,5, Kenanao P Kotokwe2, Rosemary Musonda2,5, Frank Tanser3, Max Essex2,5, Vladimir Novitsky2,5, Tulio de Oliveira3,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional, biomarker methods to determine HIV infection recency present a promising and cost-effective alternative to the repeated testing of uninfected individuals. We evaluate a viral-based assay that uses a measure of pairwise distances (PwD) to identify HIV infection recency, and compare its performance with two serologic incidence assays, BED and LAg. In addition, we assess whether combination BED plus PwD or LAg plus PwD screening can improve predictive accuracy by reducing the likelihood of a false-recent result.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27552218 PMCID: PMC4994946 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Participant and covariate characteristics.
| Participant Characteristics | n = 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Female, N (%) | 28 | (70) |
| Age (years), Median (IQR) | 27 | (20–56) |
| Time under observation (months), Median (IQR) | 45.9 | (32.4–53.9) |
| Difference between time points (months), Median (IQR) | 1.1 | (0.92–3.0) |
| Total time points per participant, Median (IQR) | 21 | (18–27) |
| Assay time points per participant, Median (IQR) | ||
| BED | 14 | (10–19) |
| Lag | 14.5 | (7–22) |
| PwD | 5 | (4–6) |
| CD4 cells/μl, Median (IQR) | 417 | (302–569) |
| Viral load (log10) copies/mL, Median (IQR) | 3.9 | (2.65–4.73) |
Area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) graph comparing the accuracy of the PwD, BED, and LAg assays in identifying HIV infection recency.
| Assay | AUC | SE | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| PWD | 0.83 | 0.03 | 0.78–0.88 |
| BED | 0.78 | 0.02 | 0.74–0.82 |
| LAg | 0.81 | 0.02 | 0.78–0.85 |
| PWD | 0.82 | 0.03 | 0.76–0.88 |
| BED | 0.75 | 0.02 | 0.71–0.79 |
| LAg | 0.79 | 0.02 | 0.75–0.82 |
| PWD | 0.78 | 0.05 | 0.68–0.89 |
| BED | 0.74 | 0.03 | 0.69–0.79 |
| LAg | 0.72 | 0.02 | 0.68–0.77 |
The table shows the results for the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) graph. The AUC is an objective measure of the accuracy of a classification schema. The best possible value is 1.0, which represents a 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity of the assay to correctly distinguish recent from established HIV infections. The results show that the PwD assay has the best predictive performance for the three window periods. CI: confidence interval.
Fig 1ROC graphs comparing the predictive performance of the PwD, LAg and BED assays for determing HIV infection recency for the 130, 180, and 360-day cut-offs.
We used the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) graph to assess the accuracy of the PwD, BED and Lag assays to identify HIV infection recency. The best possible AUC value is 1.0. The ROC graphs are produced by calculating the sensitivity and specificity at different thresholds, which are typically incremented by a fixed value over the minimum and maximum range of the assay. The AUC results show that the PwD assay is the most accurate identifier of infection recency for the three cut-off periods.
Combination assay screening to identify HIV infection recency for the 130 and 180-day cut-offs periods.
| Sensitivity level | Relative False- Recency Rate | 95% Lower bound | 95% Upper bound | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 | 28.3 | 13.8 | 47.9 | |
| 80 | 35.0 | 17.0 | 48.3 | |
| 85 | 36.7 | 19.4 | 52.1 | |
| 90 | 40.0 | 23.2 | 68.5 | |
| 75 | 28.9 | 11.8 | 44.6 | |
| 80 | 31.1 | 13.8 | 46.2 | |
| 85 | 31.1 | 18.1 | 53.2 | |
| 90 | 42.2 | 21.1 | 62.8 | |
| 75 | 44.0 | 25.0 | 68.2 | |
| 80 | 48.0 | 28.6 | 68.4 | |
| 85 | 48.0 | 27.5 | 73.3 | |
| 90 | 48.0 | 30.9 | 87.5 | |
| 75 | 42.1 | 15.8 | 71.8 | |
| 80 | 42.1 | 17.4 | 73.3 | |
| 85 | 42.1 | 18.5 | 71.8 | |
| 90 | 47.4 | 22.2 | 83.3 |
The table shows the reduction in the relative false-recency rate (rFRR) of the BED and LAg assays due to the PwD assay. A BED = 0.8 or LAg = 1.5 threshold was first used to screen the specimens for HIV infection recency. Specimens classified as recent were then re-screened using the PwD assay in order to reduce the rFRR while maintaining a 75%, 80%, 85% or 90% true-recency rate (sensitivity) of the BED or LAg assay. Since we are interested in the reduction of the rFRR by the PwD assay, we subtract this estimate from 100%. The results can be interpreted as follows: for the 180-day cut-off, the PwD assay reduces the rFRR by (100–42.2 =) 57.8% while maintaining a BED sensitivity of 90%. The table also gives the 95% confidence bounds for the reduction in the rFRR. The same result can be interpreted as follows: for the 180-day cut-off, the PwD assay reduces the rFRR by at least (100–62.8 =) 37.2% while maintaining a BED sensitivity of 90%.
Fig 2Shows a reduction in the relative false-recency rate (rFRR) when viral load information is added to the combination BED plus PwD screening procedure.
The figure shows how additional biomarker information can be used to improve the combination screening procedure for the 180-day cut-off. We hypothesize that treatment naïve participants with viral loads ≤1000 copies/mL are more likely to be recently infected with HIV. Results show an rFRR estimate of 31.6% (95% CI: 11–63.1) at a 90% sensitivity level. Since we are interested in the reduction of the rFRR by the PwD assay, we subtract this estimate from 100%. Thus, the PwD assay reduces the rFRR by 68.4% (or by at least 36.9% given the upper bound of the 95% CI) while maintaining a BED sensitivity of 90% for the subsample of VL >1000 copies/mL specimens. The figure displays both ROC curves for the viral load covariate and the corresponding rFRR estimates (displayed by the dotted vertical lines).
Fig 3Shows a reduction in the relative false-recency rate when viral load information is added to the combination LAg plus PwD screening.
The figure shows how additional biomarker information can be used to improve the combination screening procedure for the 130-day cut-off. We hypothesize that treatment naïve participants with viral loads ≤1000 copies/mL are more likely to be recently infected with HIV. Results show an rFRR estimate of 38.1% (95% CI: 15.8–88.6) at a 90% sensitivity level. Since we are interested in the reduction of the rFRR by the PwD assay, we subtract this estimate from 100%. Thus, the PwD assay reduces the rFRR by 61.9% (or by at least 11.4% given an upper bound of the 95% CI) while maintaining a LAg sensitivity of 90% for the subsample of VL <1000 copies/mL specimens. The figure displays both ROC curves for the viral load covariate and the corresponding rFRR estimates (displayed by the dotted vertical lines).