Can HIV incidence testing be used for evaluating HIV intervention programs? A reanalysis of the Orange Farm male circumcision trial (ANRS-1265)

Agnès Fiamma, Pascale Lissouba, Oliver E. Amy, Beverley Singh, Oliver B. Laeyendecker, Thomas C Quinn, Dirk Taljaard, Bertran Auvert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of male circumcision (MC) on HIV acquisition estimated using HIV incidence assays and to compare it to the effect measured by survival analysis.Methods: We used samples collected during the MC randomized controlled trial (ANRS-1265) conducted in Orange Farm (South Africa) among men aged 18 to 24. Among the 2946 samples collected at the last follow-up visit, 194 HIV-positive samples were tested using two incidence assays: Calypte HIV-EIA (BED) and an avidity assay based on the BioRad HIV1/2+O EIA (AI). The results of the assays were also combined (BED-AI). The samples included the 124 participants (4.2% of total) who were HIV-positive at randomization. The protective effect was calculated as one minus the intention-to-treat incidence rate ratio in an uncorrected manner and with correction for misclassifications, with simple theoretical formulae. Theoretical calculations showed that the uncorrected intention-to-treat effect was approximately independent of the value of the incidence assay window period and was the ratio of the number tested recent seroconverters divided by the number tested HIV-negative between the randomization groups. We used cut-off values ranging from 0.325 to 2.27 for BED, 31.6 to 96 for AI and 0.325-31.6 to 1.89-96 for BED-AI. Effects were corrected for long-term specificity using a previously published formula. 95% Confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by bootstrap resampling.Results: With the highest cut-off values, the uncorrected protective effects evaluated by BED, AI and BED-AI were 50% (95%CI: 27% to 66%), 50% (21% to 69%) and 63% (36% to 81%). The corrections for misclassifications were lower than 50% of the number of tested recent. The corrected effects were 53% (30% to 70%), 55% (25% to 77%) and 67% (38% to 86%), slightly higher than the corresponding uncorrected values. These values were consistent with the previously reported protective effect of 60% (34% to 76%) obtained with survival analysis.Conclusions: HIV incidence assays may be employed to assess the effect of interventions using cross-sectional data.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number137
JournalBMC Infectious Diseases
Volume10
DOIs
StatePublished - May 27 2010

Fingerprint

Male Circumcision
HIV
Incidence
Survival Analysis
Random Allocation
Confidence Intervals
South Africa
Farms
Randomized Controlled Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Can HIV incidence testing be used for evaluating HIV intervention programs? A reanalysis of the Orange Farm male circumcision trial (ANRS-1265). / Fiamma, Agnès; Lissouba, Pascale; Amy, Oliver E.; Singh, Beverley; Laeyendecker, Oliver B.; Quinn, Thomas C; Taljaard, Dirk; Auvert, Bertran.

In: BMC Infectious Diseases, Vol. 10, 137, 27.05.2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4331d536b5a7422f8bf085c147920f66,
title = "Can HIV incidence testing be used for evaluating HIV intervention programs? A reanalysis of the Orange Farm male circumcision trial (ANRS-1265)",
abstract = "Background: The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of male circumcision (MC) on HIV acquisition estimated using HIV incidence assays and to compare it to the effect measured by survival analysis.Methods: We used samples collected during the MC randomized controlled trial (ANRS-1265) conducted in Orange Farm (South Africa) among men aged 18 to 24. Among the 2946 samples collected at the last follow-up visit, 194 HIV-positive samples were tested using two incidence assays: Calypte HIV-EIA (BED) and an avidity assay based on the BioRad HIV1/2+O EIA (AI). The results of the assays were also combined (BED-AI). The samples included the 124 participants (4.2{\%} of total) who were HIV-positive at randomization. The protective effect was calculated as one minus the intention-to-treat incidence rate ratio in an uncorrected manner and with correction for misclassifications, with simple theoretical formulae. Theoretical calculations showed that the uncorrected intention-to-treat effect was approximately independent of the value of the incidence assay window period and was the ratio of the number tested recent seroconverters divided by the number tested HIV-negative between the randomization groups. We used cut-off values ranging from 0.325 to 2.27 for BED, 31.6 to 96 for AI and 0.325-31.6 to 1.89-96 for BED-AI. Effects were corrected for long-term specificity using a previously published formula. 95{\%} Confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by bootstrap resampling.Results: With the highest cut-off values, the uncorrected protective effects evaluated by BED, AI and BED-AI were 50{\%} (95{\%}CI: 27{\%} to 66{\%}), 50{\%} (21{\%} to 69{\%}) and 63{\%} (36{\%} to 81{\%}). The corrections for misclassifications were lower than 50{\%} of the number of tested recent. The corrected effects were 53{\%} (30{\%} to 70{\%}), 55{\%} (25{\%} to 77{\%}) and 67{\%} (38{\%} to 86{\%}), slightly higher than the corresponding uncorrected values. These values were consistent with the previously reported protective effect of 60{\%} (34{\%} to 76{\%}) obtained with survival analysis.Conclusions: HIV incidence assays may be employed to assess the effect of interventions using cross-sectional data.",
author = "Agn{\`e}s Fiamma and Pascale Lissouba and Amy, {Oliver E.} and Beverley Singh and Laeyendecker, {Oliver B.} and Quinn, {Thomas C} and Dirk Taljaard and Bertran Auvert",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2334-10-137",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
journal = "BMC Infectious Diseases",
issn = "1471-2334",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can HIV incidence testing be used for evaluating HIV intervention programs? A reanalysis of the Orange Farm male circumcision trial (ANRS-1265)

AU - Fiamma, Agnès

AU - Lissouba, Pascale

AU - Amy, Oliver E.

AU - Singh, Beverley

AU - Laeyendecker, Oliver B.

AU - Quinn, Thomas C

AU - Taljaard, Dirk

AU - Auvert, Bertran

PY - 2010/5/27

Y1 - 2010/5/27

N2 - Background: The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of male circumcision (MC) on HIV acquisition estimated using HIV incidence assays and to compare it to the effect measured by survival analysis.Methods: We used samples collected during the MC randomized controlled trial (ANRS-1265) conducted in Orange Farm (South Africa) among men aged 18 to 24. Among the 2946 samples collected at the last follow-up visit, 194 HIV-positive samples were tested using two incidence assays: Calypte HIV-EIA (BED) and an avidity assay based on the BioRad HIV1/2+O EIA (AI). The results of the assays were also combined (BED-AI). The samples included the 124 participants (4.2% of total) who were HIV-positive at randomization. The protective effect was calculated as one minus the intention-to-treat incidence rate ratio in an uncorrected manner and with correction for misclassifications, with simple theoretical formulae. Theoretical calculations showed that the uncorrected intention-to-treat effect was approximately independent of the value of the incidence assay window period and was the ratio of the number tested recent seroconverters divided by the number tested HIV-negative between the randomization groups. We used cut-off values ranging from 0.325 to 2.27 for BED, 31.6 to 96 for AI and 0.325-31.6 to 1.89-96 for BED-AI. Effects were corrected for long-term specificity using a previously published formula. 95% Confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by bootstrap resampling.Results: With the highest cut-off values, the uncorrected protective effects evaluated by BED, AI and BED-AI were 50% (95%CI: 27% to 66%), 50% (21% to 69%) and 63% (36% to 81%). The corrections for misclassifications were lower than 50% of the number of tested recent. The corrected effects were 53% (30% to 70%), 55% (25% to 77%) and 67% (38% to 86%), slightly higher than the corresponding uncorrected values. These values were consistent with the previously reported protective effect of 60% (34% to 76%) obtained with survival analysis.Conclusions: HIV incidence assays may be employed to assess the effect of interventions using cross-sectional data.

AB - Background: The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of male circumcision (MC) on HIV acquisition estimated using HIV incidence assays and to compare it to the effect measured by survival analysis.Methods: We used samples collected during the MC randomized controlled trial (ANRS-1265) conducted in Orange Farm (South Africa) among men aged 18 to 24. Among the 2946 samples collected at the last follow-up visit, 194 HIV-positive samples were tested using two incidence assays: Calypte HIV-EIA (BED) and an avidity assay based on the BioRad HIV1/2+O EIA (AI). The results of the assays were also combined (BED-AI). The samples included the 124 participants (4.2% of total) who were HIV-positive at randomization. The protective effect was calculated as one minus the intention-to-treat incidence rate ratio in an uncorrected manner and with correction for misclassifications, with simple theoretical formulae. Theoretical calculations showed that the uncorrected intention-to-treat effect was approximately independent of the value of the incidence assay window period and was the ratio of the number tested recent seroconverters divided by the number tested HIV-negative between the randomization groups. We used cut-off values ranging from 0.325 to 2.27 for BED, 31.6 to 96 for AI and 0.325-31.6 to 1.89-96 for BED-AI. Effects were corrected for long-term specificity using a previously published formula. 95% Confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by bootstrap resampling.Results: With the highest cut-off values, the uncorrected protective effects evaluated by BED, AI and BED-AI were 50% (95%CI: 27% to 66%), 50% (21% to 69%) and 63% (36% to 81%). The corrections for misclassifications were lower than 50% of the number of tested recent. The corrected effects were 53% (30% to 70%), 55% (25% to 77%) and 67% (38% to 86%), slightly higher than the corresponding uncorrected values. These values were consistent with the previously reported protective effect of 60% (34% to 76%) obtained with survival analysis.Conclusions: HIV incidence assays may be employed to assess the effect of interventions using cross-sectional data.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952737404&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952737404&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2334-10-137

DO - 10.1186/1471-2334-10-137

M3 - Article

VL - 10

JO - BMC Infectious Diseases

JF - BMC Infectious Diseases

SN - 1471-2334

M1 - 137

ER -