Laeyendecker, OliverBrookmeyer, RonMullis, Caroline E.Donnell, DeborahLingappa, JairamCelum, ConnieBaeten, Jared M.Campbell, Mary S.Essex, Myronde Bruyn, GuyFarquhar, CareyQuinn, Thomas C.Eshleman, for the Partners in Preve, Susan H.2014-07-292012Laeyendecker, Oliver, Ron Brookmeyer, Caroline E. Mullis, Deborah Donnell, Jairam Lingappa, Connie Celum, Jared M. Baeten, et al. 2012. Specificity of Four Laboratory Approaches for Cross-Sectional HIV Incidence Determination: Analysis of Samples from Adults with Known Nonrecent HIV Infection from Five African Countries.” AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses 28, no. 10: 1177–1183.0889-2229http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12605453Assays to determine cross-sectional HIV incidence misclassify some individuals with nonrecent HIV infection as recently infected, overestimating HIV incidence. We analyzed factors associated with false-recent misclassification in five African countries. Samples from 2197 adults from Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda who were HIV infected > 12 months were tested using the (1) BED capture enzyme immunoassay (BED), (2) avidity assay, (3) BED and avidity assays with higher assay cutoffs (BED+ avidity screen), and (4) multiassay algorithm (MAA) that includes the BED+ avidity screen, CD4 cell count, and HIV viral load. Logistic regression identified factors associated with misclassification. False-recent misclassification rates and 95% confidence intervals were BED alone: 7.6% (6.6, 8.8); avidity assay alone: 3.5% (2.7, 4.3); BED+ avidity screen: 2.2% (1.7, 2.9); and MAA: 1.2% (0.8, 1.8). The misclassification rate for the MAA was significantly lower than the rates for the other three methods (each p < 0.05). Misclassification rates were lower when the analysis was limited to subtype C-endemic countries, with the lowest rate obtained for the MAA [0.8% (0.2, 1.9)]. Factors associated with misclassification were for BED alone: country of origin, antiretroviral treatment (ART), viral load, and CD4 cell count; for avidity assay alone: country of origin; for BED+ avidity screen: country of origin and ART. No factors were associated with misclassification using the MAA. In a multivariate model, these associations remained significant with one exception: the association of ART with misclassification was completely attenuated. A MAA that included CD4 cell count and viral load had lower false-recent misclassification than the BED or avidity assays (alone or in combination). Studies are underway to compare the sensitivity of these methods for detection of recent HIV infection.en-USJournal Article2014-04-04Oliver Laeyendecker, Ron Brookmeyer, Caroline E. Mullis, Deborah Donnell, Jairam Lingappa, Connie Celum, Jared M. Baeten, Mary S. Campbell, Max Essex, Guy de Bruyn, Carey Farquhar, Thomas C. Quinn, and Susan H. Eshleman2014-07-2910.1089/aid.2011.0341