RITA (Recent Infection Testing Algorithm)

Published: 30 June 2012
  • RITA distinguishes recent infections from established infections.
  • It is primarily used for monitoring at a population level.
  • RITA is not accurate enough to provide reliable data for individuals.
  • The Health Protection Agency is rolling-out RITA testing to all people newly diagnosed with HIV.

The Recent Infection Testing Algorithm (RITA) is a generic name for a number of laboratory techniques which distinguish recent and established HIV infection.1 2 They may also be known as incidence tests or as STARHS (Serological Testing Algorithm for Recent HIV Seroconversion).

RITA approaches depend on looking for specific antibody markers, which give different results in the months following infection. If a test gives a result below a pre-determined cut-off point, it is deemed to be a recent infection. The definition of ‘recent infection’ depends on the test used, but may be four to six months.

Understanding changes over time in the presence of different HIV antibodies is the basis of RITA-based monitoring. The production of HIV-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) normally peaks one to two weeks after infection, before falling to background levels; whilst levels of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) increase slowly over several months and are maintained during chronic infection.

  • De-tuned assays can be used to retest samples which are known to be antibody-positive. They are only capable of detecting samples with a higher concentration of antibodies (associated with an established infection). People with recent infection will be identified by their negative result on the de-tuned test.
  • The BED-CEIA assay measures the proportion of all IgG that is directed against HIV antigens (the proportion increases in long-standing infection).
  • Avidity assays measure avidity (the strength of antibody-antigen binding), which increases in established infection.

Because of person-to-person variability in the development of immune response, RITA techniques are not yet able to give an accurate or definitive date to an individual’s infection. They are only able to suggest rough timings, and have a large margin of error.3

Moreover RITA results should be interpreted with caution in relation to criminal prosecutions for HIV transmission. For example, when a RITA result suggests that an individual was recently infected with HIV, that person may believe that they can confidently say who infected them. However RITA cannot provide reliable information in relation to individual cases – it cannot conclusively determine the timing of HIV infection. Its results should be interpreted cautiously alongside other evidence, such as phylogenetic analysis, CD4 count, viral load, HIV testing history and sexual history.4

RITA approaches have been developed in relation to HIV-1 subtype B, and are less accurate in relation to other subtypes and in people with very low CD4 cell counts. Inaccuracies in people taking combination therapy have been noted; it is not known whether use of post-exposure prophylaxis or pre-exposure prophylaxis could also affect results. Concurrent infections could also reduce the accuracy of RITA.

In 2008, the Health Protection Agency began the roll-out of RITA, with the objective of it becoming part of the routine public health monitoring of all newly diagnosed HIV infections in the country. RITA will be used to help estimate the number of new infections in the population (incidence).

Establishing true incidence is important for several reasons. When HIV diagnoses go up, it is not clear whether this increase is the result of a success in promoting HIV testing, or of a failure in preventing HIV infection. Knowing whether infections are recent or not provides a more accurate picture of who in the population is at increased risk of HIV infection; will help target resources to the populations in greatest need; contributes to the monitoring and evaluation of HIV prevention initiatives and HIV testing strategies; and helps predict how prevalence (the total number of people with HIV) will change, and therefore the future human and economic costs of HIV.

Results of RITA tests are returned to the laboratory which conducted HIV testing. At the clinician’s discretion, RITA results may be discussed with the patient, but should be considered in the context of the patient’s clinical and behavioural history, as well as the limitations of the test.

Clinicians report that discussing RITA results can be useful when a patient is diagnosed with a possible seroconversion illness or with a CD4 cell count which would indicate that antiretroviral treatment is necessary. Moreover, RITA results can help with safer sex support and contact tracing – for example, by more confidently restricting contact tracing to a specific timeframe and by prioritizing patients with a probable recent infection.

Moreover, the response from patients on being given RITA results was described as overwhelmingly positive or neutral.

References

  1. Murphy G et al. Assays for the detection of recent infections with Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1. Eurosurveillance 13:4-10, 2008
  2. Mastro T Estimating HIV Incidence in Populations Using Tests for Recent Infection: Issues, Challenges and the Way Forward. J HIV AIDS Surveill Epidemiol, 1-14, 2010
  3. Guy R Accuracy of serological assays for detection of recent infection with HIV and estimation of population incidence: a systematic review. Lancet Infectious Diseases, 747-59, 2009
  4. NAT Estimating the likelihood of recent HIV infection: implications for criminal prosecution. www.nat.org.uk, 2011
This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.
Community Consensus Statement on Access to HIV Treatment and its Use for Prevention

Together, we can make it happen

We can end HIV soon if people have equal access to HIV drugs as treatment and as PrEP, and have free choice over whether to take them.

Launched today, the Community Consensus Statement is a basic set of principles aimed at making sure that happens.

The Community Consensus Statement is a joint initiative of AVAC, EATG, MSMGF, GNP+, HIV i-Base, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, ITPC and NAM/aidsmap
close

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.

NAM’s information is intended to support, rather than replace, consultation with a healthcare professional. Talk to your doctor or another member of your healthcare team for advice tailored to your situation.