Pregnancy Does Not Affect HIV Incidence Test Results Obtained Using the BED Capture Enzyme Immunoassay or an Antibody Avidity Assay

Accurate incidence estimates are needed for surveillance of the HIV epidemic. HIV surveillance occurs at maternal-child health clinics, but it is not known if pregnancy affects HIV incidence testing.We used the BED capture immunoassay (BED) and an antibody avidity assay to test longitudinal samples from 51 HIV-infected Ugandan women infected with subtype A, C, D and intersubtype recombinant HIV who were enrolled in the HIVNET 012 trial (37 baseline samples collected near the time of delivery and 135 follow-up samples collected 3, 4 or 5 years later). Nineteen of 51 women were also pregnant at the time of one or more of the follow-up visits. The BED assay was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. The avidity assay was performed using a Genetic Systems HIV-1/HIV-2 + O EIA using 0.1M diethylamine as the chaotropic agent.During the HIVNET 012 follow-up study, there was no difference in normalized optical density values (OD-n) obtained with the BED assay or in the avidity test results (%) when women were pregnant (n = 20 results) compared to those obtained when women were not pregnant (n = 115; for BED: p = 0.9, generalized estimating equations model; for avidity: p = 0.7, Wilcoxon rank sum). In addition, BED and avidity results were almost exactly the same in longitudinal samples from the 18 women who were pregnant at only one study visit during the follow-up study (p = 0.6, paired t-test).These results from 51 Ugandan women suggest that any changes in the antibody response to HIV infection that occur during pregnancy are not sufficient to alter results obtained with the BED and avidity assays. Confirmation with larger studies and with other HIV subtypes is needed

Facilitating Next-Generation Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Clinical Trials Using HIV Recent Infection Assays: A Consensus Statement from the Forum HIV Prevention Trial Design Project

Standard-of-care HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly efficacious, but uptake of and persistence on a daily oral pill is low in many settings. Evaluation of alternate PrEP products will require innovation to avoid the unpractically large sample sizes in noninferiority trials. We propose estimating HIV incidence in people not on PrEP as an external counterfactual to which on-PrEP incidence in trial subjects can be compared. HIV recent infection testing algorithms (RITAs), such as the limiting antigen avidity assay plus viral load used on specimens from untreated HIV positive people identified during screening, is one possible approach. Its feasibility is partly dependent on the sample size needed to ensure adequate power, which is impacted by RITA performance, the number of recent infections identified, the expected efficacy of the intervention, and other factors. Screening sample sizes to support detection of an 80% reduction in incidence for 3 key populations are more modest, and comparable to the number of participants in recent phase III PrEP trials. Sample sizes would be significantly larger in populations with lower incidence, where the false recency rate is higher or if PrEP efficacy is expected to be lower. Our proposed counterfactual approach appears to be feasible, offers high statistical power, and is nearly contemporaneous with the on-PrEP population. It will be important to monitor the performance of this approach during new product development for HIV prevention. If successful, it could be a model for preventive HIV vaccines and prevention of other infectious diseases

Genome-wide association study identifies six new loci influencing pulse pressure and mean arterial pressure.

Numerous genetic loci have been associated with systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in Europeans. We now report genome-wide association studies of pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). In discovery (N = 74,064) and follow-up studies (N = 48,607), we identified at genome-wide significance (P = 2.7 × 10(-8) to P = 2.3 × 10(-13)) four new PP loci (at 4q12 near CHIC2, 7q22.3 near PIK3CG, 8q24.12 in NOV and 11q24.3 near ADAMTS8), two new MAP loci (3p21.31 in MAP4 and 10q25.3 near ADRB1) and one locus associated with both of these traits (2q24.3 near FIGN) that has also recently been associated with SBP in east Asians. For three of the new PP loci, the estimated effect for SBP was opposite of that for DBP, in contrast to the majority of common SBP- and DBP-associated variants, which show concordant effects on both traits. These findings suggest new genetic pathways underlying blood pressure variation, some of which may differentially influence SBP and DBP