4.0 Article

Determination of Mean Recency Period for Estimation of HIV Type 1 Incidence with the BED-Capture EIA in Persons Infected with Diverse Subtypes

Journal

AIDS RESEARCH AND HUMAN RETROVIRUSES
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 265-273

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/aid.2010.0159

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The IgG capture BED enzyme immunoassay (BED-CEIA) was developed to detect recent HIV-1 infection for the estimation of HIV-1 incidence from cross-sectional specimens. The mean time interval between seroconversion and reaching a specified assay cutoff value [referred to here as the mean recency period (omega)], an important parameter for incidence estimation, is determined for some HIV-1 subtypes, but testing in more cohorts and new statistical methods suggest the need for a revised estimation of omega in different subtypes. A total of 2927 longitudinal specimens from 756 persons with incident HIV infections who had been enrolled in 17 cohort studies was tested by the BED-CEIA. The omega was determined using two statistical approaches: (1) linear mixed effects regression (omega(1)) and (2) a nonparametric survival method (omega(2)). Recency periods varied among individuals and by population. At an OD-n cutoff of 0.8, omega(1) was 176 days (95% CL 164-188 days) whereas omega(2) was 162 days (95% CL 152-172 days) when using a comparable subset of specimens (13 cohorts). When method 2 was applied to all available data (17 cohorts), omega(2) ranged from 127 days (Thai AE) to 236 days (subtypes AG, AD) with an overall omega(2) of 197 days (95% CL 173-220). About 70% of individuals reached a threshold OD-n of 0.8 by 197 days (mean omega) and 95% of people reached 0.8 OD-n by 480 days. The determination of omega with more data and new methodology suggests that omega of the BED-CEIA varies between different subtypes and/or populations. These estimates for omega may affect incidence estimates in various studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available