Laeyendecker Oliver, Brookmeyer Ron, Mullis Caroline E, Donnell Deborah, Lingappa Jairam, Celum Connie, Baeten Jared M, Campbell Mary S, Essex Max, de Bruyn Guy, Farquhar Carey, Quinn Thomas C, Eshleman Susan H
Laboratory of Immunoregulation, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2012 Oct;28(10):1177-83. doi: 10.1089/aid.2011.0341.
Assays to determine cross-sectional HIV incidence misclassify some individuals with nonrecent HIV infection as recently infected, overestimating HIV incidence. We analyzed factors associated with false-recent misclassification in five African countries. Samples from 2197 adults from Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda who were HIV infected > 12 months were tested using the (1) BED capture enzyme immunoassay (BED), (2) avidity assay, (3) BED and avidity assays with higher assay cutoffs (BED+ avidity screen), and (4) multiassay algorithm (MAA) that includes the BED+ avidity screen, CD4 cell count, and HIV viral load. Logistic regression identified factors associated with misclassification. False-recent misclassification rates and 95% confidence intervals were BED alone: 7.6% (6.6, 8.8); avidity assay alone: 3.5% (2.7, 4.3); BED+ avidity screen: 2.2% (1.7, 2.9); and MAA: 1.2% (0.8, 1.8). The misclassification rate for the MAA was significantly lower than the rates for the other three methods (each p < 0.05). Misclassification rates were lower when the analysis was limited to subtype C-endemic countries, with the lowest rate obtained for the MAA [0.8% (0.2, 1.9)]. Factors associated with misclassification were for BED alone: country of origin, antiretroviral treatment (ART), viral load, and CD4 cell count; for avidity assay alone: country of origin; for BED+ avidity screen: country of origin and ART. No factors were associated with misclassification using the MAA. In a multivariate model, these associations remained significant with one exception: the association of ART with misclassification was completely attenuated. A MAA that included CD4 cell count and viral load had lower false-recent misclassification than the BED or avidity assays (alone or in combination). Studies are underway to compare the sensitivity of these methods for detection of recent HIV infection.
用于确定横断面HIV发病率的检测方法会将一些非近期感染HIV的个体误分类为近期感染者,从而高估HIV发病率。我们分析了五个非洲国家中与假近期误分类相关的因素。对来自博茨瓦纳、肯尼亚、南非、坦桑尼亚和乌干达的2197名感染HIV超过12个月的成年人的样本进行检测,检测方法包括:(1) BED捕获酶免疫测定法(BED);(2) 亲和力测定法;(3) 采用更高检测临界值的BED和亲和力测定法(BED + 亲和力筛查);(4) 包括BED + 亲和力筛查、CD4细胞计数和HIV病毒载量的多检测算法(MAA)。逻辑回归确定了与误分类相关的因素。假近期误分类率及95%置信区间分别为:单独使用BED:7.6%(6.6,8.8);单独使用亲和力测定法:3.5%(2.7,4.3);BED + 亲和力筛查:2.2%(1.7,2.9);MAA:1.2%(0.8,1.8)。MAA的误分类率显著低于其他三种方法(p均<0.05)。当分析仅限于C亚型流行国家时,误分类率较低,MAA的误分类率最低 [0.8%(0.2,1.9)]。与误分类相关的因素分别为:单独使用BED:原籍国、抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)、病毒载量和CD4细胞计数;单独使用亲和力测定法:原籍国;BED + 亲和力筛查:原籍国和ART。使用MAA时没有因素与误分类相关。在多变量模型中,除了一个例外,这些关联仍然显著:ART与误分类的关联完全减弱。包含CD4细胞计数和病毒载量的MAA比BED或亲和力测定法(单独或联合使用)具有更低的假近期误分类率。目前正在进行研究以比较这些方法检测近期HIV感染的敏感性。