Dataset Information

Systematic review of the accuracy of antibody tests used to screen asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C infection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several expert groups, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, have recently examined or are currently examining whether primary care physicians should screen asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. To inform decision-making on HCV screening, we performed a systematic review of the accuracy of antibody tests compared with other immunoassays and RNA detection for screening asymptomatic adults for HCV infection in Canada.

Methods

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from 1990 to 2016; resulting citations were uploaded into DistillerSR and independently screened by 2 reviewers. Original research studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for inclusion. At least 80% of the study population had to be asymptomatic, nonpregnant, treatment-naïve adults with unknown liver enzyme values and unknown HCV status. Risk of bias was assessed with the use of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool; the quality of the body of evidence was assessed by means of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.

Results

Of 1537 articles identified, 81 underwent full-text review, and 9 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with RNA detection, the sensitivity of the third-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was variable (61.0%-81.8%), and its specificity was high (97.5%-99.7%). As expected, there were more false-positive results when comparing antibody tests to RNA detection than to other immunoassays. Our GRADE assessment suggested that there was a high concern for risk of bias, particularly verification bias, and substantial inconsistency between studies in terms of their design.

Interpretation

More research is needed to better characterize the accuracy of antibody tests used to screen for HCV infection in the general population. Jurisdictions that recently adopted birth cohort screening for HCV infection are encouraged to evaluate and report on the accuracy of HCV screening tests and screening benefits and harms. PROSPERO registration: no. CRD42016039710.

SUBMITTER: Cadieux G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5173481 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of the accuracy of antibody tests used to screen asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C infection.

Cadieux Geneviève G Campbell Jennifer J Dendukuri Nandini N

CMAJ open 20161001 4

<h4>Background</h4>Several expert groups, including the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, have recently examined or are currently examining whether primary care physicians should screen asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. To inform decision-making on HCV screening, we performed a systematic review of the accuracy of antibody tests compared with other immunoassays and RNA detection for screening asymptomatic ...[more]

PMID: 28018889

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoint-of-care tests provide a plausible diagnostic strategy for hepatitis C infection in economically impoverished areas. However, their utility depends upon the overall performance of individual tests.MethodsA literature search was conducted using the metasearch engine Mett?, a query interface for retrieving articles from five leading medical databases. Studies were included if they employed point-of-care tests to detect antibodies of hepatitis C virus and compared the results with reference tests. Two reviewers performed a quality assessment of the studies and extracted data for estimating test accuracy.FindingsThirty studies that had evaluated 30 tests fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood-ratio, negative likelihood-ratio and diagnostic odds ratio for all tests were 97.4% (95% CI: 95.9-98.4), 99.5% (99.2-99.7), 80.17 (55.35-116.14), 0.03 (0.02-0.04), and 3032.85 (1595.86-5763.78), respectively. This suggested a high pooled accuracy for all studies. We found substantial heterogeneity between studies, but none of the subgroups investigated could account for the heterogeneity. Genotype diversity of HCV had no or minimal influence on test performance. Of the seven tests evaluated in the meta-regression model, OraQuick had the highest test sensitivity and specificity and showed better performance than a third generation enzyme immunoassay in seroconversion panels. The next highest test sensitivities and specificities were from TriDot and SDBioline, followed by Genedia and Chembio. The Spot and Multiplo tests produced poor test sensitivities but high test specificities. Nine of the remaining 23 tests produced poor test sensitivities and specificities and/or showed poor performances in seroconversion panels, while 14 tests had high test performances with diagnostic odds ratios ranging from 590.70 to 28822.20.ConclusionsPerformances varied widely among individual point-of-care tests for diagnosis of hepatitis C virus infection. Physicians should consider this while using specific tests in clinical practice.

Project description:Although direct-acting antivirals can achieve sustained virological response rates greater than 90% in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infected persons, at present the majority of HCV-infected individuals remain undiagnosed and therefore untreated. While there are a wide range of HCV serological tests available, there is a lack of formal assessment of their diagnostic performance. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate he diagnostic accuracy of available rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and laboratory based EIA assays in detecting antibodies to HCV.We used the PRISMA checklist and Cochrane guidance to develop our search protocol. The search strategy was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015023567). The search focused on hepatitis C, diagnostic tests, and diagnostic accuracy within eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, SCOPUS, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde and WHO Global Index Medicus. Studies were included if they evaluated an assay to determine the sensitivity and specificity of HCV antibody (HCV Ab) in humans. Two reviewers independently extracted data and performed a quality assessment of the studies using the QUADAS tool. We pooled test estimates using the DerSimonian-Laird method, by using the software R and RevMan. 5.3.A total of 52 studies were identified that included 52,673 unique test measurements. Based on five studies, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of HCV Ab rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were 98% (95% CI 98-100%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%) compared to an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) reference standard. High HCV Ab RDTs sensitivity and specificity were observed across screening populations (general population, high risk populations, and hospital patients) using different reference standards (EIA, nucleic acid testing, immunoblot). There were insufficient studies to undertake subanalyses based on HIV co-infection. Oral HCV Ab RDTs also had excellent sensitivity and specificity compared to blood reference tests, respectively at 94% (95% CI 93-96%) and 100% (95% CI 100-100%). Among studies that assessed individual oral RDTs, the eight studies revealed that OraQuick ADVANCE® had a slightly higher sensitivity (98%, 95% CI 97-98%) compared to the other oral brands (pooled sensitivity: 88%, 95% CI 84-92%).RDTs, including oral tests, have excellent sensitivity and specificity compared to laboratory-based methods for HCV antibody detection across a wide range of settings. Oral HCV Ab RDTs had good sensitivity and specificity compared to blood reference standards.

Project description:BackgroundRapid point-of-care tests provide plausible diagnostic strategy for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) in low resource areas. However, their utility depends upon their overall performance. Our objective was to meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of rapid point-of-care tests for HBsAg.MethodsLiterature search was done with the help of a metasearch engine Mett?, a query interface for retrieving articles from five leading medical databases. Studies that employed rapid point-of-care tests for detection of HBsAg and compared the results with reference test were included. Two reviewers performed quality assessment of the studies and extracted data for estimating test accuracy. Twenty-seven studies were meta-analyzed and stratified by multiple parameters.ResultsTwenty-seven studies had evaluated 49 test brands and generated 76 data points. Sensitivity of individual tests varied widely and were heterogeneous (range 43.5%-99.8%); while specificity estimates were more robust and close to 100% (range 90%-100%). Overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR and diagnostic odds ratio for all tests were 97.1% (95% CI, 96.1%-97.9%), 99.9% (CI, 99.8%-100%), 118.4 (CI, 84.7-165.5), 0.032 (CI, 0.023-0.045) and 4094.7 (CI, 2504.1-6600.8) respectively. This suggested high pooled accuracy for all studies. We found substantial heterogeneity between studies. Three factors (study location, reference standard and study score) appeared most strongly associated with test estimates and observed heterogeneity. The Determine test showed consistency in performance in studies done across developed and developing countries and the Determine and the BinaxNOW tests had significantly higher estimates than pooled estimates of remaining tests. Tests revealed analytical sensitivity of 4 IU/ml against manufacturer's claim of 0.5 IU/ml; reduced sensitivity with HBsAg mutants and poor performance in seroconversion panels.ConclusionsTests with better analytical sensitivity need to be developed and their feasibility and outcomes in various clinical settings need to be addressed.

Project description:Chronic Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection is characterised by the persistence of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). Expanding HBV diagnosis and treatment programmes into low resource settings will require high quality but inexpensive rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in addition to laboratory-based enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect HBsAg. The purpose of this review is to assess the clinical accuracy of available diagnostic tests to detect HBsAg to inform recommendations on testing strategies in 2017 WHO hepatitis testing guidelines.The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using 9 databases. Two reviewers independently extracted data according to a pre-specified plan and evaluated study quality. Meta-analysis was performed. HBsAg diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) was compared to enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and nucleic-acid test (NAT) reference standards. Subanalyses were performed to determine accuracy among brands, HIV-status and specimen type.Of the 40 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 33 compared RDTs and/or EIAs against EIAs and 7 against NATs as reference standards. Thirty studies assessed diagnostic accuracy of 33 brands of RDTs in 23,716 individuals from 23 countries using EIA as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% (95% CI: 89.1, 90.8) and 99.5% (95% CI: 99.4, 99.5) respectively, but accuracy varied widely among brands. Accuracy did not differ significantly whether serum, plasma, venous or capillary whole blood was used. Pooled sensitivity of RDTs in 5 studies of HIV-positive persons was lower at 72.3% (95% CI: 67.9, 76.4) compared to that in HIV-negative persons, but specificity remained high. Five studies evaluated 8 EIAs against a chemiluminescence immunoassay reference standard with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) and 98.4% (95% CI: 97.8, 98.8), respectively. Accuracy of both RDTs and EIAs using a NAT reference were generally lower, especially amongst HIV-positive cohorts.HBsAg RDTs have good sensitivity and excellent specificity compared to laboratory immunoassays as a reference standard. Sensitivity of HBsAg RDTs may be lower in HIV infected individuals.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review was conducted to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommendations on screening for thyroid dysfunction (TD). The review sought to answer key questions on the benefits and harms of screening for TD, patients' values and preferences for screening, and the benefits and harms of treating screen-detected TD.MethodsThis review followed Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care methods, which include the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The search strategy used for benefits and harms of screening and treatment was an update to the 2014 review by the US Preventive Services Task Force and searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. MEDLINE, Embase, ProQuest Public Health, and SCOPUS were searched for patients' values and preferences for screening. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, deaths due to cardiovascular diseases, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, atrial fibrillation, fractures, quality of life, cognitive function, and harms due to TD treatment. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts according to pre-determined inclusion criteria and assessed the risk of bias for each study included. Strength and quality of the evidence was assessed for each outcome. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity of the included studies.ResultsNo studies were found on screening for TD, treatment of subclinical hyperthyroidism, or patients' values and preferences for screening for TD. Twenty-two studies (from 24 publications) on the treatment of TD in patients with screen-detected subclinical hypothyroidism were included. Results from the included randomized controlled trials suggested no benefit of treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism for the large majority of outcomes. We found very low-quality evidence (from two cohort studies) for a small reduction in all-cause mortality among adults <?65 or 40-70?years who were treated for TD compared to those who were not.ConclusionsThis review found moderate to very low-quality evidence on the benefits and harms of treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism, with most of the evidence showing no benefit of treatment.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic test accuracy of two rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts of people with SARS-CoV-2 infection on day 5 after exposure.DesignProspective cross sectional study.SettingFour public health service covid-19 test sites in the Netherlands.Participants4274 consecutively included close contacts (identified through test-and-trace programme or contact tracing app) aged 16 years or older and asymptomatic for covid-19 when requesting a test.Main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of Veritor System (Beckton Dickinson) and Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) rapid antigen tests, with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing as reference standard. The viral load cut-off above which 95% of people with a positive RT-PCR test result were virus culture positive was used as a proxy of infectiousness.ResultsOf 2678 participants tested with Veritor, 233 (8.7%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 149 were also detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 63.9%, 95% confidence interval 57.4% to 70.1%). Of 1596 participants tested with Biosensor, 132 (8.3%) had a RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection of whom 83 were detected by the rapid antigen test (sensitivity 62.9%, 54.0% to 71.1%). In those who were still asymptomatic at the time of sampling, sensitivity was 58.7% (51.1% to 66.0%) for Veritor (n=2317) and 59.4% (49.2% to 69.1%) for Biosensor (n=1414), and in those who developed symptoms were 84.2% (68.7% to 94.0%; n=219) for Veritor and 73.3% (54.1% to 87.7%; n=158) for Biosensor. When a viral load cut-off was applied for infectiouness (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E gene copies/mL), the overall sensitivity was 90.1% (84.2% to 94.4%) for Veritor and 86.8% (78.1% to 93.0%) for Biosensor, and 88.1% (80.5% to 93.5%) for Veritor and 85.1% (74.3% to 92.6%) for Biosensor, among those who remained asymptomatic throughout. Specificities were >99%, and positive and negative predictive values were >90% and >95%, for both rapid antigen tests in all analyses.ConclusionsThe sensitivities of both rapid antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic close contacts tested on day 5 onwards after close contact with an index case were more than 60%, increasing to more than 85% after a viral load cut-off was applied as a proxy for infectiousness.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of the accuracy of antibody tests used to screen asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C infection.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Systematic review of the accuracy of antibody tests used to screen asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C infection.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets