PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Joseph Sempa
AU  - Eduard Grebe
AU  - Alex Welte
TI  - Quantitative interpretation of Sedia LAg Assay test results after HIV diagnosis
AID  - 10.1101/2021.09.13.21263495
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.09.13.21263495
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/12/2021.09.13.21263495.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/11/12/2021.09.13.21263495.full
AB  - Background Testing for ‘recent HIV infection’ is common in surveillance, where only population-level estimates (of incidence) are reported. Typically, ‘recent infection’ is a category, obtained by applying a threshold on an underlying continuous biomarker from some laboratory assay(s). Somehow interpreting the biomarker values obtained for individual subjects, for example interpreting them as estimates of the date of infection, has obvious potential applications in the context of studies of early infection, and has also for some years attracted significant interest as an extra component of post-test counselling and treatment initiation. The applicable analyses have typically run aground on the complexity of the full biomarker growth model, which is in principle a non-linear mixed-effects model of unknown structure, the fitting of which seems infeasible from realistically obtainable data.Methods It is known that to estimate Mean Duration of Recent Infection (MDRI) at a given value of the recent/non-recent -infection discrimination threshold, one may compress the full biomarker growth model into a relation capturing the probability of a recent test result as a function of time since infection. Noting that the time-derivative (gradient) of this curve (for a value of threshold – h) is identical to the formal likelihood relevant to Bayesian inference of the infection date, for a subject yielding an assay result * h * on the date of their first positive HIV test. This observation bypasses the need for fitting a complex detailed biomarker growth model. Using publicly available data from the CEPHIA collaboration, we calculated curves for a range of thresholds for the Sedia Lag assay and performed Bayesian inference of infection data, given a uniform prior implied by a last negative and first positive test.Results We demonstrate the generation of posteriors for infection date, for patients with various delays between their last negative and first positive HIV test, and a range of LAg assay results (ODn) hypothetically obtained on the date of the first positive result.Conclusion Depending on the last-negative / first-positive interval, there is a range of ODn values that yields posteriors significantly different from the uniform prior one would be left with based merely on interval censoring. Hence, a LAg ODn obtained on the date of, or soon after, diagnosis contains potentially significant information about infection dating. It seems worth analysing other assays with meaningful dynamic range, especially tests already routinely used in primary HIV diagnosis (for example chemiluminescent assays and reader/cartridge lateral flow tests which admit objective variable line intensity readings) which have a sufficient dynamic range that corresponds to a clinically meaningful range of times-since-infection that are worth distinguishing from each other.Competing Interest StatementThe authors do not have any competing interests.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa and the University of the Free State.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The data used in the publication was published as part of Sempa et al. 2019.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll the data used in this manuscript was already published in a previous article PMID: 31348809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220345.s008