To assess the utility of cost-effective dried blood spot (DBS) field sampling for incidence and drug resistance surveillance of persons at high risk for HIV infection.
We evaluated DBS collected in 2007-2010 in non-clinical settings by finger-stick from HIV-positive heterosexuals at increased risk of HIV infection (n = 124), men who have sex with men (MSM, n = 110), and persons who inject drugs (PWID, n = 58). Relative proportions of recent-infection findings among risk groups were assessed at avidity index (AI) cutoffs of ≤25%, ≤30%, and ≤35%, corresponding to an infection mean duration of recency (MDR) of 220.6, 250.4, and 278.3 days, respectively. Drug resistance mutation prevalence was compared among the risk groups and avidity indices.
HIV antibody avidity testing of all self-reported ARV-naïve persons (n = 186) resulted in 9.7%, 11.3% and 14.0% with findings within the 221, 250, and 278-day MDRs, respectively. The proportion of ARV-naïve MSM, heterosexuals, and PWID reporting only one risk category who had findings below the suggested 30% AI was 23.1%, 6.9% and 3.6% (p<0.001), respectively. MSM had the highest prevalence of drug resistance and the only cases of transmitted multi-class resistance. Among the ARV-experienced, MSM had disproportionately more recent-infection results than did heterosexuals and PWID.
The disproportionately higher recent-infection findings for MSM as compared to PWID and heterosexuals increased as the MDR window increased. Unreported ARV use might explain greater recent-infection findings and drug resistance in this MSM population. DBS demonstrated utility in expanded HIV testing; however, optimal field handling is key to accurate recent-infection estimates.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,132,464
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#134,680
of 229,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,313
of 374,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,048
of 4,405 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 229,485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,405 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
