Christopher D Pilcher1, Travis C Porco1, Shelley N Facente1,2,3, Eduard Grebe2,4, Kevin P Delaney5, Silvina Masciotra5, Reshma Kassanjee4,6, Michael P Busch1,2, Gary Murphy7, S Michele Owen5, Alex Welte4. 1. University of California, San Francisco. 2. Vitalant Research Institute (formerly Blood Systems Research Institute), San Francisco. 3. Facente Consulting, Richmond, California, USA. 4. The South African DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 6. Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa. 7. Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the precision of new and established methods for estimating duration of HIV infection. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of HIV testing results from serial samples in commercially available panels, taking advantage of extensive testing previously conducted on 53 seroconverters. METHODS: We initially investigated four methods for estimating infection timing: method 1, 'Fiebig stages' based on test results from a single specimen; method 2, an updated '4th gen' method similar to Fiebig stages but using antigen/antibody tests in place of the p24 antigen test; method 3, modeling of 'viral ramp-up' dynamics using quantitative HIV-1 viral load data from antibody-negative specimens; and method 4, using detailed clinical testing history to define a plausible interval and best estimate of infection time. We then investigated a 'two-step method' using data from both methods 3 and 4, allowing for test results to have come from specimens collected on different days. RESULTS: Fiebig and '4th gen' staging method estimates of time since detectable viremia had similar and modest correlation with observed data. Correlation of estimates from both new methods (3 and 4), and from a combination of these two ('two-step method') was markedly improved and variability significantly reduced when compared with Fiebig estimates on the same specimens. CONCLUSION: The new 'two-step' method more accurately estimates timing of infection and is intended to be generalizable to more situations in clinical medicine, research, and surveillance than previous methods. An online tool is now available that enables researchers/clinicians to input data related to method 4, and generate estimated dates of detectable infection.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the precision of new and established methods for estimating duration of HIV infection. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of HIV testing results from serial samples in commercially available panels, taking advantage of extensive testing previously conducted on 53 seroconverters. METHODS: We initially investigated four methods for estimating infection timing: method 1, 'Fiebig stages' based on test results from a single specimen; method 2, an updated '4th gen' method similar to Fiebig stages but using antigen/antibody tests in place of the p24 antigen test; method 3, modeling of 'viral ramp-up' dynamics using quantitative HIV-1 viral load data from antibody-negative specimens; and method 4, using detailed clinical testing history to define a plausible interval and best estimate of infection time. We then investigated a 'two-step method' using data from both methods 3 and 4, allowing for test results to have come from specimens collected on different days. RESULTS: Fiebig and '4th gen' staging method estimates of time since detectable viremia had similar and modest correlation with observed data. Correlation of estimates from both new methods (3 and 4), and from a combination of these two ('two-step method') was markedly improved and variability significantly reduced when compared with Fiebig estimates on the same specimens. CONCLUSION: The new 'two-step' method more accurately estimates timing of infection and is intended to be generalizable to more situations in clinical medicine, research, and surveillance than previous methods. An online tool is now available that enables researchers/clinicians to input data related to method 4, and generate estimated dates of detectable infection.
Authors: E S Rosenberg; M Altfeld; S H Poon; M N Phillips; B M Wilkes; R L Eldridge; G K Robbins; R T D'Aquila; P J Goulder; B D Walker Journal: Nature Date: 2000-09-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Silvina Masciotra; J Steven McDougal; Jane Feldman; Patrick Sprinkle; Laura Wesolowski; S Michele Owen Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Nella Green; Martin Hoenigl; Antoine Chaillon; Christy M Anderson; Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond; Davey M Smith; Susan J Little Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Frances H Priddy; Christopher D Pilcher; Renee H Moore; Pradnya Tambe; Mahin N Park; Susan A Fiscus; Mark B Feinberg; Carlos del Rio Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jonathan Z Li; Behzad Etemad; Hayat Ahmed; Evgenia Aga; Ronald J Bosch; John W Mellors; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Michael M Lederman; Michael Para; Rajesh T Gandhi Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: G Murphy; C D Pilcher; S M Keating; R Kassanjee; S N Facente; A Welte; E Grebe; K Marson; M P Busch; P Dailey; N Parkin; J Osborn; S Ongarello; K Marsh; J M Garcia-Calleja Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 4.434
Authors: Deborah Donnell; Eric Ramos; Connie Celum; Jared Baeten; Joan Dragavon; Jordan Tappero; Jairam R Lingappa; Allan Ronald; Kenneth Fife; Robert W Coombs Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Karl Stefic; Nadia Mahjoub; Céline Desouche; Marie Laure Néré; Damien Thierry; Constance Delaugerre; Francis Barin; Marie Laure Chaix Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Shelley N Facente; Michael P Busch; Eduard Grebe; Christopher D Pilcher; Alex Welte; Brian Rice; Gary Murphy Journal: Gates Open Res Date: 2019-07-23
Authors: Ivana Parker; George Khalil; Amy Martin; Michael Martin; Suphak Vanichseni; Wanna Leelawiwat; Janet McNicholl; Andrew Hickey; J Gerardo García-Lerma; Kachit Choopanya; Kelly A Curtis Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Daniel B Reeves; Morgane Rolland; Bethany L Dearlove; Yifan Li; Merlin L Robb; Joshua T Schiffer; Peter Gilbert; E Fabian Cardozo-Ojeda; Bryan T Mayer Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.293
Authors: Samuel R Schnittman; Amelia N Deitchman; Gabriele Beck-Engeser; HaeLee Ahn; Vanessa A York; Heather Hartig; Frederick M Hecht; Jeffrey N Martin; Steven G Deeks; Francesca T Aweeka; Peter W Hunt Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 7.759
Authors: Eduard Grebe; Shelley N Facente; Jeremy Bingham; Christopher D Pilcher; Andrew Powrie; Jarryd Gerber; Gareth Priede; Trust Chibawara; Michael P Busch; Gary Murphy; Reshma Kassanjee; Alex Welte Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2019-10-26 Impact factor: 3.090