Comparing the test performance of dried-blood-spot and plasma HIV recent infection testing samples in a nationally scaled sex worker programme in Zimbabwe

Introduction

If we are to achieve sustainable HIV epidemic control, we need to better understand epidemic dynamics and improve the efficiency of programme service delivery. In gaining strategic insights of patterns and distributions of new HIV infections, and in prioritising prevention and testing interventions, there has been much discussion about the use of recency testing in programmatic setting [1-6]. Recency testing can help identify whether a person newly diagnosed with HIV recently acquired their infection (usually <one year) or not [1]. As a disproportionate number of HIV transmissions originate from people who have early HIV infection [7], identifying people or populations with recent infections has strategic potential to inform where interventions should be prioritised to reduce overall levels of transmission.

In relation to epidemic dynamics, it has been argued that there is a clear rationale for the use of recency assays for population-level HIV incidence estimation [2]. However, in relation to helping programmes focus limited resources to populations with the greatest potential benefit, it has been contended that their application for non-incidence use cases remains questionable [2]. In previous research we have shown the pragmatic application of laboratory-based HIV recency testing in programme settings in Kenya and Zimbabwe to be feasible [3,4]. Among calls for further research to better understand the potential biases associated with HIV recency testing [1,2,5,6], has been a request to explore the extent sample type influences whether a person is assigned as being recent [8]. In the context of a national scaled sex worker programme in Zimbabwe we explored whether conducting plasma-based HIV recency testing, in addition to our standard approach using DBS, impacted on recent HIV infection classification.

Methods

We implemented a laboratory-based Recent Infection Testing Algorithm (RITA) across the Centre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR) key populations programme (formerly known as the Sisters with a Voice programme) in Zimbabwe between October 2021 and January 2023. The programme has been described elsewhere [9]. Since the programme’s initiation in 2009, HIV testing coverage has increased substantially and those attending services are likely to be representative of female sex workers (FSW) in Zimbabwe [10-12].

All FSW testing newly HIV positive during the study period were eligible for enrolment in the study if aged 18 years and older and having received a confirmatory HIV positive test result, in line with Zimbabwe’s national testing algorithm. Those under 18 years, with an indeterminate HIV test result or prior history of testing HIV-positive, or reported as being in receipt of anti-retroviral therapy, were excluded from enrolment. Informed consent was sought from all eligible women. A DBS sample was collected for each consenting woman, with samples tested using the Maxim HIV-1 Limiting Antigen Avidity (LAg Avidity) Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) in accordance with the product insert (DBS KIT CAT NO. 92003) [13]. Samples were stored at clinic sites at room temperature in gas impermeable plastic bags with desiccant sachets to keep them dry. Samples were collected from sites every 14 days by a designated study driver and delivered to the Flow Cytometry Laboratory in Harare.

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) whole blood samples were also collected from a sub-set of consenting women at pre-identified Sisters clinics with the capacity for samples to reach the laboratory within 24 hours. Sites collecting plasma samples stored these in cool boxes with thermometers and trackers to monitor the temperature and timely delivery to the lab. Cooler boxes were collected at the end of each day by a delivery company. At the laboratory, EDTA whole blood samples were checked using quality control procedures and stored at 20 degrees Celsius.

Samples with a normalised optical density (ODn) <2.0 underwent retesting in triplicate from a fresh dilution of the specimen to confirm the HIV LAg result. Samples with a final ODn >1.5 after retesting were classified as long-term HIV infection. Viral load testing was performed with a NucliSens assay on anti-HIV-1 positive samples with a final ODn ≤1.5. Samples with an ODn ≤1.5 and a viral load <1000 copies/ml denoted long-term infection, and those with an ODn ≤1.5 and a viral load ≥1000 copies/ml were classified as recent infection. Those samples with an ODn of <0.4 were retested with an HIV-1 ELISA test to confirm they were HIV-1 seropositive.

Results

Over the study period, 24,976 individual FSW HIV tested at CeSHHAR programme clinics, of whom 9.5% (2,363/24,979) newly tested HIV positive. Of these 2,363 women, 55.5% (1311/2,363) were offered and gave consent for a sample to be taken for DBS recency and viral load testing and were enrolled in the study. Among these women no samples were rejected, and 11.7% (153/1,311) were classified as having a recent infection.

Focusing on pre-identified clinics capable of plasma testing and transport, 464 women were offered and consented to paired sample collection (i.e. DBS and plasma, and viral load). Among these 464 women, plasma testing classified 10.1% (47) as having a recent infection, with DBS classifying 12.3% (57) (table 1). Of the 58 women with paired sample collection who had a test result classified as recent, 46 (79.3%) were concordant recent on both DBS and plasma, with 12 (20.7%) being dis-concordant. Eleven samples were deemed long-standing by the plasma assay but recent by the paired DBS, and one deemed long-standing by DBS but recent by the paired plasma sample. Overall, there was 97.4% (452/464) concordance between the DBS and plasma samples.

Figure 1 compares ODn values of plasma and DBS samples. Of the 12 samples that were not in agreement for recent infection classification (pink dots), 3 had very different ODn values. The remaining 9 fell close to either side of the 1.5ODn cut-off. Figure 2 shows that, on average, plasma samples had higher ODn by a mean difference of 0.53 ODn (SD 0.98). Tests however did not show consistent variance across the range of ODn values, with ODn agreement being better at values below 2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: ODn values for plasma and DBS samples

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Bland-Altman plot of plasma and DBS ODn on paired samples

Discussion

To gain additional insights into routine HIV recent infection testing within a national scaled sex worker programme in Zimbabwe, we compared results using DBS and plasma samples. Overall, categorical determination was good, with 97% of results concordant. However, we found the use of different sample types impacted on recent HIV infection classification. On average, plasma samples had a higher ODn than DBS samples, with a mean difference of 0.53. This difference resulted in a higher percentage of women being classified as recent positive on their DBS sample versus plasma (12.2% versus 10.3%).

In a previous study test matching 100 plasma and DBS samples, DBS samples were more likely to be classified as recent [8]. The study’s authors suggested DBS protocols could be adjusted to account for false recency results, or that appropriate changes to assay cut-offs could be applied to account for the higher rate of recency positive test results arising from DBS. In relation to false recency results, we were unable to explore this in our study beyond including a viral load in our RITA. However, we can assume that both the plasma and DBS recent classified results are likely to include misclassification. We previously reported in Siaya county in Western Kenya that of eleven women classified as recent based on their LAg plasma samples and viral-load tests, one was reclassified as long-standing after a review of clinical documentation that showed she had initiated HIV treatment almost four years prior (recency misclassification of 9.1%) [3]. In Nairobi, Kenya, we previously reported that of 48 people testing recent based on their DBS sample and viral load one woman and one man were reclassified following antiretroviral therapy metabolite testing (misclassification of 4.2%) [3]. In relation to applying assay cut-offs, our data (preferably in combination with other complementary data) could be utilised to inform a statistical adjustment to harmonise cut-offs on DBS and plasma samples.

When conducting recency testing using DBS or plasma for different use-cases [2], there are factors in addition to test accuracy to be considered, for example implementation. In relation to three pilot studies of HIV recency testing we previously conducted in Kenya and Zimbabwe, we reported testing acceptance rates to differ by sample type (higher acceptance rates for DBS than plasma) [3,4]. We also reported how DBS sample collection was simpler than plasma sampling, as they could be transported and stored dry at room temperature (plasma requires maintenance of a cold chain during transportation and storage) [4]. In implementing the collection of both sample types, it was our experience in this study that DBS samples were easier to collect, transport and store than plasma samples. However, we also found DBS samples to be less timely than plasma due to the need for elution before testing. The issue of timeliness, however, was somewhat negated by the necessity for all recency tests to be analysed alongside viral load results for validation. This need for additional information, such as viral load, to interpret results, and to confirm HIV diagnosis, also equalises potential time gains from adopting recency point-of-care tests over laboratory-based testing for incidence estimation. We should note that concerns relating to low sensitivity for the detection of recent infection have also been raised in relation to point-of-care tests [14,15].

Laboratory-based recency testing, when conducted optimally, can distinguish recently acquired infection from long-standing infection among persons newly diagnosed with HIV. Depending on use-case and setting, however, there are trade-offs when considering DBS or plasma-based samples between test performance and ease of implementation. In comparing DBS and plasma test results, we present information that can improve the use and interpretation of recency assays in population-level HIV surveillance activities.