IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0020027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seroconverting Blood Donors as a Resource for Characterising and Optimising Recent Infection Testing Algorithms for Incidence Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Reshma Kassanjee
  • Alex Welte
  • Thomas A McWalter
  • Sheila M Keating
  • Marion Vermeulen
  • Susan L Stramer
  • Michael P Busch

Abstract

Introduction: Biomarker-based cross-sectional incidence estimation requires a Recent Infection Testing Algorithm (RITA) with an adequately large mean recency duration, to achieve reasonable survey counts, and a low false-recent rate, to minimise exposure to further bias and imprecision. Estimating these characteristics requires specimens from individuals with well-known seroconversion dates or confirmed long-standing infection. Specimens with well-known seroconversion dates are typically rare and precious, presenting a bottleneck in the development of RITAs. Methods: The mean recency duration and a ‘false-recent rate’ are estimated from data on seroconverting blood donors. Within an idealised model for the dynamics of false-recent results, blood donor specimens were used to characterise RITAs by a new method that maximises the likelihood of cohort-level recency classifications, rather than modelling individual sojourn times in recency. Results: For a range of assumptions about the false-recent results (0% to 20% of biomarker response curves failing to reach the threshold distinguishing test-recent and test-non-recent infection), the mean recency duration of the Vironostika-LS ranged from 154 (95% CI: 96–231) to 274 (95% CI: 234–313) days in the South African donor population (n = 282), and from 145 (95% CI: 67–226) to 252 (95% CI: 194–308) days in the American donor population (n = 106). The significance of gender and clade on performance was rejected (p−value = 10%), and utility in incidence estimation appeared comparable to that of a BED-like RITA. Assessment of the Vitros-LS (n = 108) suggested potentially high false-recent rates. Discussion: The new method facilitates RITA characterisation using widely available specimens that were previously overlooked, at the cost of possible artefacts. While accuracy and precision are insufficient to provide estimates suitable for incidence surveillance, a low-cost approach for preliminary assessments of new RITAs has been demonstrated. The Vironostika-LS and Vitros-LS warrant further analysis to provide greater precision of estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Reshma Kassanjee & Alex Welte & Thomas A McWalter & Sheila M Keating & Marion Vermeulen & Susan L Stramer & Michael P Busch, 2011. "Seroconverting Blood Donors as a Resource for Characterising and Optimising Recent Infection Testing Algorithms for Incidence Estimation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-8, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0020027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward H. Kaplan & Ron Brookmeyer, 1999. "Snapshot Estimators of Recent HIV Incidence Rates," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 29-37, February.
    2. Raji Balasubramanian & Stephen W. Lagakos, 2010. "Estimating HIV Incidence Based on Combined Prevalence Testing," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 1-10, March.
    3. Rui Wang & Stephen W. Lagakos, 2010. "Augmented Cross-Sectional Prevalence Testing for Estimating HIV Incidence," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 864-874, September.
    4. Raji Balasubramanian & Stephen W. Lagakos, 2010. "Correction to article “Estimating HIV Incidence Based on Combined Prevalence Testing”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 326-326, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. B. Claggett & S. W. Lagakos & R. Wang, 2012. "Augmented Cross-Sectional Studies with Abbreviated Follow-up for Estimating HIV Incidence," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 62-74, March.
    2. Guy Severin Mahiane & Rachid Ouifki & Hilmarie Brand & Wim Delva & Alex Welte, 2012. "A General HIV Incidence Inference Scheme Based on Likelihood of Individual Level Data and a Population Renewal Equation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-11, September.
    3. Raji Balasubramanian & Stephen W. Lagakos, 2010. "Correction to article “Estimating HIV Incidence Based on Combined Prevalence Testing”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 326-326, March.
    4. Rui Wang & Stephen W. Lagakos, 2010. "Augmented Cross-Sectional Prevalence Testing for Estimating HIV Incidence," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 864-874, September.
    5. Raji Balasubramanian & Stephen W. Lagakos, 2010. "Estimating HIV Incidence Based on Combined Prevalence Testing," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(1), pages 1-10, March.
    6. Stephen E. Chick & Sada Soorapanth & James S. Koopman, 2003. "Inferring Infection Transmission Parameters That Influence Water Treatment Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(7), pages 920-935, July.
    7. Doug Morrison & Oliver Laeyendecker & Ron Brookmeyer, 2022. "Regression with interval‐censored covariates: Application to cross‐sectional incidence estimation," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 908-921, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0020027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.