Decreasing Proportion of Recent Infections among Newly Diagnosed HIV-1 Cases in Switzerland, 2008 to 2013 Based on Line-Immunoassay-Based Algorithms

Discrimination between recent and non-recent HIV infections using routine diagnostic serological assays

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.

Importance of an Early HIV Antibody Differentiation Immunoassay for Detection of Dual Infection with HIV-1 and HIV-2

Background

HIV-2 is primarily endemic in West Africa and India, however, in time of global migration, a possible HIV-2 infection or co-infection with HIV-1 should be recognized right at the time of HIV diagnosis, in order to enable optimized antiretroviral treatment. Laboratory HIV testing consists of a combined HIV1/2/O antibody + antigen screening test and subsequent confirmation and type differentiation by a serological test formatted as a multi-line or multi-spot assay. CDC has proposed a revised alternative HIV diagnostic strategy which, in case of a reactive result in a combined HIV1/2/O antibody + antigen screening test, comprises an HIV-1 nucleic acid test (NAT) for HIV confirmation instead of an antibody differentiation immunoassay (ADI). Only a negative NAT must be further investigated by an ADI, thus saving expenses for ADI in most instances. We have investigated this alternative strategy with respect to its recognition of dual HIV-1 and HIV-2 infection.

Methods and Results

Anonymized data of HIV notifications of patients newly diagnosed with HIV in Switzerland between 2007 and 2014 were analysed retrospectively. In a total of 4'679 notifications, we found 35 HIV-2 infections, 9 (25.7%) of which were dually infected with HIV-1. In 7 of the 9 dual HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections, HIV-1 RNA testing at the time of HIV diagnosis was positive with concentrations from 102 to 94'300 copies/mL plasma. HIV-1 RNA data were not available for the other two cases.

Conclusions

The alternative CDC strategy would have missed the concomitant HIV-2 infection in at least 7, but probably even more, of the 9 dually infected patients, as the detectable HIV-1 RNA would have precluded a supplemental ADI. Early ADI is mandatory for diagnosis of dual HIV-1/HIV-2 infection and guidance of appropriate therapy.