+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Impact of HIV subtype on performance of the limiting antigen-avidity enzyme immunoassay, the bio-rad avidity assay, and the BED capture immunoassay in Rakai, Uganda



Impact of HIV subtype on performance of the limiting antigen-avidity enzyme immunoassay, the bio-rad avidity assay, and the BED capture immunoassay in Rakai, Uganda



Aids Research and Human Retroviruses 30(4): 339-344



Previous studies demonstrated that individuals with subtype D HIV infection who had been infected for 2 or more years were frequently misclassified as assay positive using cross-sectional incidence assays. Samples from 510 subjects (212 subtype A, 298 subtype D) who were infected for 2.2 to 14.5 years (median 5.4 years) and were not virally suppressed were tested using an LAg-Avidity enzyme immunoassay (LAg-Avidity EIA), Bio-Rad Avidity assay, and BED capture enzyme immunoassay (BED-CEIA). The performance of these three assays was evaluated using various assay cutoff values [LAg-Avidity EIA: <1.0 OD-n and <2.0 OD-n; Bio-Rad Avidity assay: <40% avidity index (AI) and <80% AI; BED-CEIA: <0.8 OD-n]. The mean LAg-Avidity EIA result was higher for subtype A than D (4.54±0.95 vs. 3.86±1.26, p<0.001); the mean Bio-Rad Avidity assay result was higher for subtype A than D (88.9%±12.5% vs. 75.1±30.5, p<0.001); and the mean BED-CEIA result was similar for the two subtypes (2.2±1.2 OD-n for subtype A, 2.2±1.3 OD-n for subtype D, p<0.9). The frequency of misclassification was higher for individuals with subtype D infection compared to those with subtype A infection, using either the LAg-Avidity EIA with a cutoff of <2.0 OD-n or the Bio-Rad Avidity assay with cutoffs of <40% or <80% AI. No subtype-specific differences in assay performance were observed using the BED-CEIA. Sex and age were not significantly associated with misclassification by any assay. The LAg-Avidity EIA with a cutoff <1.0 OD-n had the lowest frequency of misclassification in this Ugandan population.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053709726

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24083837

DOI: 10.1089/aid.2013.0169


Related references

Improved testing of recent HIV-1 infections with the BioRad avidity assay compared to the limiting antigen avidity assay and BED Capture enzyme immunoassay: evaluation using reference sample panels from the German Seroconverter Cohort. Plos one 9(6): E98038, 2014

Estimating False-Recent Classification for the Limiting-Antigen Avidity EIA and BED-Capture Enzyme Immunoassay in Vietnam: Implications for HIV-1 Incidence Estimates. Aids Research and Human Retroviruses 33(6): 546-554, 2017

Validation of the Limiting Antigen Avidity Assay to Estimate Level and Trends in HIV Incidence in an A/D Epidemic in Rakai, Uganda. Aids Research and Human Retroviruses 35(4): 364-367, 2019

Performance of a limiting-antigen avidity enzyme immunoassay for cross-sectional estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. Plos one 8(12): E82772, 2013

Pregnancy does not affect HIV incidence test results obtained using the BED capture enzyme immunoassay or an antibody avidity assay. Plos one 5(10): E13259, 2010

The Recency Period for Estimation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Incidence by the AxSYM Avidity Assay and BED-Capture Enzyme Immunoassay in the Republic of Korea. Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives 5(4): 187-192, 2014

Detection of recent HIV-1 infection using a new limiting-antigen avidity assay: potential for HIV-1 incidence estimates and avidity maturation studies. Plos one 7(3): E33328, 2012

Comparison among the BED capture enzyme immunoassay test and AxSYM avidity index assay for determining recent HIV infection and incidence in two Voluntary Counselling and Testing Centres in Northeast Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases 18(4): 449-453, 2014

Immune responses in Ugandan women infected with subtypes A and D HIV using the BED capture immunoassay and an antibody avidity assay. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 65(4): 390-396, 2014

Performance of a cytomegalovirus IgG enzyme immunoassay kit modified to measure avidity. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology 21(6): 808-812, 2014

Assessment of IgM enzyme immunoassay and IgG avidity assay for distinguishing between primary and secondary immune response to rubella vaccine. Journal of Virological Methods 130(1-2): 59-65, 2005

Performance of the immunoglobulin G avidity and enzyme immunoassay IgG/IgM screening tests for differentiation of the clinical spectrum of toxoplasmosis. Journal of Microbiology 42(3): 211-215, 2004

Detection of acute measles infections by indirect and mu-capture enzyme immunoassays for immunoglobulin M antibodies and measles immunoglobulin G antibody avidity enzyme immunoassay. Journal of Medical Virology 45(3): 306-311, 1995

Maturation of immunoglobulin g avidity after rubella vaccination studied by an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay avidity elisa and by hemolysis typing. Journal of Medical Virology 27(4): 293-298, 1989

Development of fully automated determination of marker-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) avidity based on the avidity competition assay format: application for Abbott Architect cytomegalovirus and Toxo IgG Avidity assays. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 47(3): 603-613, 2009