Immunological markers for identifying recent HIV infection in North-West India

Development of a multiassay algorithm (MAA) to identify recent HIV infection in newly diagnosed individuals in Indonesia

Ongoing HIV transmission is a public health priority in Indonesia. We developed a new multiassay algorithm (MAA) to identify recent HIV infection. The MAA is a sequential decision tree based on multiple biomarkers, starting with CD4+ T cells >200/μL, followed by plasma viral load (pVL) > 1,000 copies/ml, avidity index (AI) < 0 · 7, and pol ambiguity <0 · 47%. Plasma from 140 HIV-infected adults from 19 hospitals across Indonesia (January 2018 - June 2020) was studied, consisting of a training set (N = 60) of longstanding infection (>12-month) and a test set (N = 80) of newly diagnosed (≤1-month) antiretroviral (ARV) drug naive individuals. Ten of eighty (12 · 5%) newly diagnosed individuals were classified as recent infections. Drug resistance mutations (DRMs) against reverse transcriptase inhibitors were identified in two individuals: one infected with HIV subtype C (K219Q, V179T) and the other with CRF01_AE (V179D). Ongoing HIV transmission, including infections with DRMs, is substantial in Indonesia.

Evaluation of antiretroviral therapy effect and prognosis between HIV-1 recent and long-term infection based on a rapid recent infection testing algorithm

Early diagnosis of HIV-1 infection and immediate initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) are important for achieving better virological suppression and quicker immune reconstitution. However, no serological HIV-1 recency testing assay has been approved for clinical use, and the real-world clinical outcomes remain to be explored for the subjects with HIV-1 recent infection (RI) or long-term infection (LI) when antiretroviral therapy is initiated. In this study, a HIV-1 rapid recent-infection testing strip (RRITS) was developed and incorporated into the recent infection testing algorithms (RITAs) to distinguish HIV-1 RI and LI and to assess their clinical outcomes including virological response, the recovery of CD4+ T-cell count and CD4/CD8 ratio and the probability of survival. We found that the concordance between our RRITS and the commercially available LAg-Avidity EIA was 97.13% and 90.63% when detecting the longitudinal and cross-sectional HIV-1 positive samples, respectively. Among the 200 HIV-1 patients analyzed, 22.5% (45/200) of them were RI patients and 77.5% (155/200) were chronically infected and 30% (60/200) of them were AIDS patients. After cART, 4.1% (5/155) of the LI patients showed virological rebound, but none in the RI group. The proportion of CD4+ T-cell count >500 cells/mm3 was significantly higher in RI patients than in LI after 2 years of cART with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.6 (95% CI: 1.9, 3.6, p < 0.0001) while the probability of CD4/CD8 = 1 was higher in RI than in LI group with a HR of 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2, 5.7, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the immunological recovery speed was 16 cells/mm3/month for CD4+ T-cell and 0.043/month for the ratio of CD4/CD8 in the RI group, and was bigger in the RI group than in the LI patients (p < 0.05) during the 1st year of cART. The survival probability for LI patients was significantly lower than that for RI patients (p < 0.001). Our results indicated that RRITS combined with RITAs could successfully distinguish HIV-1 RI and LI patients whose clinical outcomes were significantly different after cART. The rapid HIV-1 recency test provides a feasible assay for diagnosing HIV-1 recent infection and a useful tool for predicting the outcomes of HIV-1 patients.

A systematic review of limiting antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay for detection of recent HIV-1 infection to expand supported applications

Introduction

The need for detection of new and recent HIV infections is essential for surveillance and assessing interventions in controlling the epidemic. HIV recency assays are one way of providing reliable incidence estimates by determining recent versus non-recent infection. The objective of this study was to review the current body of knowledge of the limiting antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay to expand supported applications through an assessment of what is known and the gaps.

Methods

A search for peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection was conducted using the search term “human immunodeficiency virus and avidity”. Non-peer reviewed published reports from the Population-based HIV Impact Assessment Project were also included. These were limited to literature published in English between January 2010 and August 2021.

Results

This search resulted in 2080 publications and 14 reports, with 137 peer-reviewed studies and 14 non-peer reviewed reports that met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total of 151 studies for the final review. There were similar findings among studies that compared the performances of assay manufacturers and sample types. Studies that evaluated various assay algorithms and thresholds were heterogeneous, illustrating the need for context-specific test characteristics for classifying recent infections. Most studies estimated subtype-specific test characteristics for HIV subtypes A, B, C, and D. This was further illustrated when looking only at studies that compared HIV incidence estimates from recency assay algorithms and longitudinal cohorts.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the current body of knowledge provides important information that contributes towards distinguishing recent and non-recent infection and incidence estimation. However, there are knowledge gaps with respect to factors that influence the test characteristics (e.g., HIV-1 subtype, population characteristics, assay algorithms and thresholds). Further studies are needed to estimate and establish context-specific test characteristics that consider these influencing factors to improve and expand the use of this assay for detection of recent HIV infection.

Use of HIV Recency Assays for HIV Incidence Estimation and Other Surveillance Use Cases: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

HIV assays designed to detect recent infection, also known as "recency assays," are often used to estimate HIV incidence in a specific country, region, or subpopulation, alone or as part of recent infection testing algorithms (RITAs). Recently, many countries and organizations have become interested in using recency assays within case surveillance systems and routine HIV testing services to measure other indicators beyond incidence, generally referred to as "non-incidence surveillance use cases."

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to identify published evidence that can be used to validate methodological approaches to recency-based incidence estimation and non-incidence use cases. The evidence identified through this review will be used in the forthcoming technical guidance by the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) on the use of HIV recency assays for identification of epidemic trends, whether for HIV incidence estimation or non-incidence indicators of recency.

METHODS

To identify the best methodological and field implementation practices for the use of recency assays to estimate HIV incidence and trends in recent infections for specific populations or geographic areas, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to (1) understand the use of recency testing for surveillance in programmatic and laboratory settings, (2) review methodologies for implementing recency testing for both incidence estimation and non-incidence use cases, and (3) assess the field performance characteristics of commercially available recency assays.

RESULTS

Among the 167 documents included in the final review, 91 (54.5%) focused on assay or algorithm performance or methodological descriptions, with high-quality evidence of accurate age- and sex-disaggregated HIV incidence estimation at national or regional levels in general population settings, but not at finer geographic levels for prevention prioritization. The remaining 76 (45.5%) described the field use of incidence assays including field-derived incidence (n=45), non-incidence (n=25), and both incidence and non-incidence use cases (n=6). The field use of incidence assays included integrating RITAs into routine surveillance and assisting with molecular genetic analyses, but evidence was generally weaker or only reported on what was done, without validation data or findings related to effectiveness of using non-incidence indicators calculated through the use of recency assays as a proxy for HIV incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV recency assays have been widely validated for estimating HIV incidence in age- and sex-specific populations at national and subnational regional levels; however, there is a lack of evidence validating the accuracy and effectiveness of using recency assays to identify epidemic trends in non-incidence surveillance use cases. More research is needed to validate the use of recency assays within HIV testing services, to ensure findings can be accurately interpreted to guide prioritization of public health programming.

Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for identifying individuals with recent HIV infection: HPTN 071 (PopART)

Background

Assays and multi-assay algorithms (MAAs) have been developed for population-level cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation. These algorithms use a combination of serologic and/or non-serologic biomarkers to assess the duration of infection. We evaluated the performance of four MAAs for individual-level recency assessments.

Methods

Samples were obtained from 220 seroconverters (infected <1 year) and 4,396 non-seroconverters (infected >1 year) enrolled in an HIV prevention trial (HPTN 071 [PopART]); 28.6% of the seroconverters and 73.4% of the non-seroconverters had HIV viral loads ≤400 copies/mL. Samples were tested with two laboratory-based assays (LAg-Avidity, JHU BioRad-Avidity) and a point-of-care assay (rapid LAg). The four MAAs included different combinations of these assays and HIV viral load. Seroconverters on antiretroviral treatment (ART) were identified using a qualitative multi-drug assay.

Results

The MAAs identified between 54 and 100 (25% to 46%) of the seroconverters as recently-infected. The false recent rate of the MAAs for infections >2 years duration ranged from 0.2%-1.3%. The MAAs classified different overlapping groups of individuals as recent vs. non-recent. Only 32 (15%) of the 220 seroconverters were classified as recent by all four MAAs. Viral suppression impacted the performance of the two LAg-based assays. LAg-Avidity assay values were also lower for seroconverters who were virally suppressed on ART compared to those with natural viral suppression.

Conclusions

The four MAAs evaluated varied in sensitivity and specificity for identifying persons infected <1 year as recently infected and classified different groups of seroconverters as recently infected. Sensitivity was low for all four MAAs. These performance issues should be considered if these methods are used for individual-level recency assessments.