Explore the vast range of titles available.

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). Interpreting the biomarker values obtained for individual subjects, 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. 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 t since infection, given a value of assay threshold h which defines the recent/non-recent discrimination. We demonstrate that the derivative (gradient), with respect to h. of the probability of recent infection, seen as a function of both t and h, is identical to the formal likelihood relevant to Bayesian inference of the time since seroconversion, for a subject yielding an assay result h, at or close to 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 calibrated this likelihood function for the Sedia Lag assay, and performed Bayesian inference on hypothetical infection data. 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. 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.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serosurveys can estimate cumulative incidence for monitoring epidemics, requiring assessment of serologic assays to inform testing algorithm development and interpretation of results. We conducted a multilaboratory evaluation of 21 commercial high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays using blinded panels of 1,000 highly characterized specimens. Assays demonstrated a range of sensitivities (96%-63%), specificities (99%-96%), and precision (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.55-0.99). Durability of antibody detection was dependent on antigen and immunoglobulin targets; antispike and total Ig assays demonstrated more stable longitudinal reactivity than antinucleocapsid and IgG assays. Assays with high sensitivity, specificity, and durable antibody detection are ideal for serosurveillance, but assays demonstrating waning reactivity are appropriate for other applications, including correlation with neutralizing activity and detection of anamnestic boosting by reinfections. Assay performance must be evaluated in context of intended use, particularly in the context of widespread vaccination and circulation of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

SARS-CoV-2 case surveillance in the United States did not distinguish first infections from reinfections. In a large blood donor cohort, self-reported first infections and reinfections during 2020-2022 mirrored public health case count surveillance, and reinfection incidence peaked in 2022. Blood donor data could aid in SARS-CoV-2 and emerging infectious disease surveillance.

Nucleocapsid antibody assays can be used to estimate SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in regions implementing spike-based COVID-19 vaccines. However, poor sensitivity of nucleocapsid antibody assays in detecting infection after vaccination has been reported. We derived a lower cutoff for identifying previous infections in a large blood donor cohort (N = 142,599) by using the Ortho VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total-N Antibody assay, improving sensitivity while maintaining specificity >98%. We validated sensitivity in samples donated after self-reported swab-confirmed infections diagnoses. Sensitivity for first infections in unvaccinated donors was 98.1% (95% CI 98.0-98.2) and for infection after vaccination was 95.6% (95% CI 95.6-95.7) based on the standard cutoff. Regression analysis showed sensitivity was reduced in the Delta compared with Omicron period, in older donors, in asymptomatic infections, <30 days after infection, and for infection after vaccination. The standard Ortho N antibody threshold demonstrated good sensitivity, which was modestly improved with the revised cutoff.

More than 85% of US adults had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2023. Continued serosurveillance of transmission and assessments of correlates of protection require robust detection of reinfections. We developed a serologic method for identifying reinfections in longitudinal blood donor data by assessing nucleocapsid (N) antibody boosting using a total immunoglobulin assay. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded an optimal ratio of >1.43 (sensitivity 87.1%, specificity 96.0%). When prioritizing specificity, a ratio of >2.33 was optimal (sensitivity 75.3%, specificity 99.3%). In donors with higher anti-N reactivity levels before reinfection, sensitivity was reduced. Sensitivity could be improved by expanding the dynamic range of the assay through dilutional testing, from 38.8% to 66.7% in the highest reactivity group (signal-to-cutoff ratio before reinfection >150). This study demonstrated that longitudinal testing for N antibodies can be used to identify reinfections and estimate total infection incidence in a blood donor cohort.

In 2017, San Francisco's initiative to locally eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a public health threat, End Hep C SF, generated an estimate of city-wide HCV prevalence in 2015, but only incorporated limited information about population HCV treatment. Using additional data and updated methods, we aimed to update the 2015 estimate to 2019 and provide a more accurate estimate of the number of people with untreated, active HCV infection overall and in key subgroups-people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men (MSM), and low socioeconomic status transgender women (low SES TW). Our estimates are based on triangulation of data from blood bank testing records, cross-sectional and longitudinal observational studies, and published literature. We calculated subpopulation estimates based on biological sex, age and/or HCV risk group. When multiple sources of data were available for subpopulation estimates, we calculated an average using inverse variance weighting. Plausible ranges (PRs) were conservatively estimated to convey uncertainty. The total number of people estimated to have anti-HCV antibodies in San Francisco in 2019 was 22,585 (PR:12,014-44,152), with a citywide seroprevalence of 2.6% (PR:1.4%-5.0%)-similar to the 2015 estimate of 21,758 (PR:10,274-42,067). Of all people with evidence of past or present infection, an estimated 11,582 (PR:4,864-35,094) still had untreated, active HCV infection, representing 51.3% (PR:40.5%-79.5%) of all people with anti-HCV antibodies, and 1.3% (PR:0.6%-4.0%) of all San Franciscans. PWID comprised an estimated 2.8% of the total population of San Francisco, yet 73.1% of people with anti-HCV antibodies and 90.4% (n = 10,468, PR:4,690-17,628) of untreated, active HCV infections were among PWID. MSM comprised 7.8% of the total population, yet 11.7% of people with anti-HCV antibodies and 1.0% (n = 119, PR:0-423) of those with untreated active infections. Low SES TW comprised an estimated 0.1% of the total population, yet 1.4% of people with HCV antibodies and 1.6% (n = 183, PR:130-252) of people with untreated active infections. Despite the above-average number (2.6%) of people with anti-HCV antibodies, we estimate that only 1.3% (PR:0.6%-4.0%) of all San Francisco residents have untreated, active HCV infection-likely a reflection of San Francisco's robust efforts to diagnose infection among high-risk groups and initiate curative treatment with as many people as possible. While plausible ranges of infections are wide, these findings indicate that while the overall number of people with anti-HCV antibodies may have increased slightly, the number of people with active HCV infection may have decreased slightly since 2015. This estimate improves upon the 2015 calculations by directly estimating the impact of curative treatment citywide and in subgroups. However, more research is needed to better understand the burden of HCV disease among other subgroups at high risk, such as Blacks/African Americans, people with a history of injection drug use (but not injecting drugs in the last 12 months), people who are currently or formerly incarcerated, and people who are currently or formerly unhoused.

Background Accurately identifying individuals who are on antiretroviral therapy (ART) is important to determine ART coverage and proportion on ART who are virally suppressed. ART is also included in recent infection testing algorithms used to estimate incidence. We compared estimates of ART coverage, viral load suppression rates and HIV incidence using ART self-report and detection of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs and we identified factors associated with discordance between the methods. Methods Cross-sectional population-based survey in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Individuals 15–59 years were eligible. Interviews included questions about ARV use. Rapid HIV testing was performed at the participants’ home. Blood specimens were collected for ARV detection, LAg-Avidity HIV incidence testing and viral load quantification in HIV-positive individuals. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify socio-demographic covariates associated with discordance between self-reported ART and ARV detection. Results Of the 5649 individuals surveyed, 1423 were HIV-positive. Median age was 34 years and 76.3% were women. ART coverage was estimated at 51.4% (95%CI:48.5–54.3), 53.1% (95%CI:50.2–55.9) and 56.1% (95%CI:53.5–58.8) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined (classified as ART exposed if ARV detected and/or ART reported) respectively. ART coverage estimates using the 3 methods were fairly similar within sex and age categories except in individuals aged 15–19 years: 33.3% (95%CI:23.3–45.2), 33.8% (95%CI:23.9–45.4%) and 44.3% (95%CI:39.3–46.7) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined. Viral suppression below 1000cp/mL in individuals on ART was estimated at 89.8% (95%CI:87.3–91.9), 93.1% (95%CI:91.0–94.8) and 88.7% (95%CI:86.2–90.7) using self-reported ART, ARV detection and both methods combined respectively. HIV incidence was estimated at 1.4 (95%CI:0.8–2.0) new cases/100 person-years when employing no measure of ARV use, 1.1/100PY (95%CI:0.6–1.7) using self-reported ART, and 1.2/100PY (95%CI:0.7–1.7) using ARV detection. In multivariate analyses, individuals aged 15–19 years had a higher risk of discordance on measures of ARV exposure (aOR:9.4; 95%CI:3.9–22.8), while migrants had a lower risk (aOR:0.3; 95%CI:0.1–0.6). Conclusions In KwaZulu-Natal, the method of identifying ARV use had little impact on estimates of ART coverage, viral suppression rate and HIV incidence. However, discordant results were more common in younger individuals. This may skew estimates of ART coverage and viral suppression, particularly in adolescent surveys.

Background Increasing syphilis infection rates are a concerning issue worldwide. Blood donation screening is an opportunity to monitor the burden of asymptomatic infections, providing information on contemporary factors associated with infection and public health insights into transmission. Methods Blood donations collected at five Brazilian blood centers between January 2020 and February 2022 were screened with treponemal or non-treponemal assays according to local protocols, followed by alternate Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA); samples with reactive or indeterminate results in the alternate ELISA were further tested with the rapid plasma reagin (RPR), and categorized as RPR-positive or RPR-negative. RPR-positive donations were also grouped according to RPR titers (< 1:8 or ≥ 1:8). We report the prevalence of syphilis in first-time donors (FTD) and repeat donors (RD), as well as incidence in RD. Multivariable models were used to assess factors associated with RPR-positive syphilis. Additionally, we explored the relationship between syphilis positivity in FTD and syphilis cases registered by the Brazilian public health surveillance system from 2012 to 2022. Findings Of 862,146 donations, 10,771 (1.3%) were reactive or indeterminate on screening; 7,541 available samples underwent additional testing. Of those, 5,876 (77.9%) tested positive or indeterminate on the alternate ELISA; 907 (12.0%) were RPR-negative, 2,980 (39.5%) were RPR-positive < 1:8, and 1,989 (26.4%) were RPR-positive with titers ≥ 1:8. The prevalence of syphilis including RPR-positive and RPR-negative cases was 2.5% among FTD and 0.6% among RD. The incidence of syphilis in RD was 90/10 5 person-years (95% CI 86–95), with younger age, male gender, Black and Mixed race (relative to White) and lower education associated with incident syphilis in RD. Blood donors had lower rates of syphilis compared to the general population, with correspondence between numbers in blood donors and congenital syphilis rates registered by the Brazilian surveillance system between 2012 and 2022. Conclusion The prevalence of syphilis was < 3% among FTD and < 1% among RD. We found wide variability according to donor characteristics, with gender, age, race, and schooling significantly associated with prevalent and incident RPR-positive syphilis in multivariable models. Syphilis occurrence among blood donors can be used to assess disease patterns in low-risk populations.

In response to the 2015 Zika virus (ZIKV) epidemic that occurred in Brazil, numerous commercial serological assays have been developed for clinical and research applications. Diagnosis of recent infection in pregnant women remains challenging. Having standardized, comparative studies of ZIKV tests is important for implementing optimal diagnostic testing and disease surveillance. This is especially important for serology tests used to detect ZIKV infection given that antibodies against ZIKV can cross-react with other arboviruses in the same virus family, such as dengue virus (DENV), yellow fever virus (YFV) and West Nile virus (WNV). We looked at the sensitivity and specificity of tests detecting ZIKV antibodies (IgM, IgG) from multiple manufacturers using panels of samples previously collected with known exposure to ZIKV and other arboviruses. We found that performance of the IgM tests was highly variable, with only one test (Inbios 2.0 IgM capture ELISA) having both high sensitivity and specificity. All IgG tests showed good sensitivity; however, specificity was highly variable, with some assays giving false-positive results on samples infected by another flavivirus. Overall, the results confirmed that accurate ZIKV antibody testing is challenging, especially in specimens from regions endemic for multiple other flaviviruses, and highlight the importance of available and suitable reference samples to evaluate ZIKV diagnostics.

Early detection of Zika virus (ZIKV) transmission within geographic regions informs implementation of community mitigation measures such as vector reduction strategies, travel advisories, enhanced surveillance among pregnant women, and possible implementation of blood and organ donor screening or deferral. Standardized, comparative assessments of ZIKV assay and testing lab performance are important to develop optimal approaches to ZIKV diagnostic testing and surveillance. We conducted an expanded blinded panel study to characterize and compare the analytical performance of fifteen diagnostic and blood screening ZIKV NAT assays, including detection among single- and multiplex assays detecting ZIKV, dengue virus (DENV) and chikungunya virus (CHIKV). A 300 member blinded panel was constructed, consisting of 11 serial half-log dilutions ranging from ~10 4 to 10 −1 genome equivalents/mL in 25 replicates each of the Tahitian Asian ZIKV isolate in ZIKV-negative human serum. Additionally, clinical samples from individuals with DENV-like syndrome or suspected ZIKV infection in Brazil were evaluated. The majority of assays demonstrated good specificity. Analytical sensitivities varied 1–2 logs, with a substantially higher limit of detection (LOD) in one outlier. Similar analytical sensitivity for ZIKV RNA detection in singleplex and multiplex assays of the Grifols and ThermoFisher tests were observed. Coefficient of Assay Efficiency (CE), calculated to characterize assays’ RNA extraction and amplification efficiency, ranged from 0.13 for the Certest VIASURE multiplex and 0.75 for the Grifols multiplex assays. In general, assays using transcription mediated amplification (TMA) technology had greater CE compared to assays using conventional PCR technology. Donor screening NAT assays were significantly more sensitive than diagnostic RT-qPCR assays, primarily attributable to higher sample input volumes. However, ideal assays to maximize sensitivity and throughput may not be a viable option in all contexts, with other factors such as cost, instrumentation, and regulatory approval status influencing assay availability and selection, particularly in resource constrained settings.