Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance evaluation of hepatitis B e antigen rapid diagnostic tests in Malawi.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) has targeted a reduction in viral hepatitis-related mortality by 65% and incidence by 90% by 2030, necessitating enhanced hepatitis B treatment and prevention programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status is used in the assessment of eligibility for antiviral treatment and for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT). Accordingly, the WHO has classified HBeAg rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) as essential medical devices.

Methods

We assessed the performance characteristics of three commercially available HBeAg RDTs (SD Bioline, Alere, South Africa; Creative Diagnostics, USA; and Biopanda Reagents, UK) in two hepatitis B surface antigen-positive cohorts in Blantyre, Malawi: participants of a community study (n = 100) and hospitalised patients with cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 94). Two investigators, blinded to the reference test result, independently assessed each assay. We used an enzyme-linked immunoassay (Monolisa HBeAg, Bio-Rad, France) as a reference test and quantified HBeAg concentration using dilutions of the WHO HBeAg standard. We related the findings to HBV DNA levels, and evaluated treatment eligibility using the TREAT-B score.

Results

Among 194 HBsAg positive patients, median age was 37 years, 42% were femaleand 26% were HIV co-infected. HBeAg prevalence was 47/194 (24%). The three RDTs showed diagnostic sensitivity of 28% (95% CI 16-43), 53% (38-68) and 72% (57-84) and specificity of 96-100% for detection of HBeAg. Overall inter-rater agreement κ statistic was high at 0.9-1.0. Sensitivity for identifying patients at the threshold where antiviral treatment is recommended for PMTCT, with HBV DNA > 200,000 IU/ml (39/194; 20%), was 22, 49 and 54% respectively. Using the RDTs in place of the reference HBeAg assay resulted in 3/43 (9%), 5/43 (12%) and 8/43 (19%) of patients meeting the TREAT-B treatment criteria being misclassified as ineligible for treatment. A relationship between HBeAg concentration and HBeAg detection by RDT was observed. A minimum HBeAg concentration of 2.2-3.1 log₁₀IU/ml was required to yield a reactive RDT.

Conclusions

Commercially available HBeAg RDTs lack sufficient sensitivity to accurately classify hepatitis B patients in Malawi. This has implications for hepatitis B public health programs in sub-Saharan Africa. Alternative diagnostic assays are recommended.

SUBMITTER: Stockdale AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8157469 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The clinical performance of two rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) were regionally evaluated in East African populations. Swabs were collected from 1,432 individuals from five Partner States of the East African Community (Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and South Sudan). The two rapid antigen tests (Bionote NowCheck COVID-19 Ag and SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag) were evaluated against the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA by the Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) gold standard. Of the concordant results with both RT-PCR and rapid antigen test data (862 for Bionote and 852 for SD Biosensor), overall clinical sensitivity was 60% and 50% for the Bionote NowCheck and the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q, respectively. Stratification by viral load, including samples with RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) of <25, improved sensitivity to 90% for both rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Overall specificity was good at 99% for both antigen tests. Taken together, the clinical performance of both Ag-RDTs in real world settings within the East African target population was lower than has been reported elsewhere and below the acceptable levels for sensitivity of >80%, as defined by the WHO. Therefore, the rapid antigen test alone should not be used for diagnosis but could be used as part of an algorithm to identify potentially infectious individuals with high viral load. IMPORTANCE Accurate diagnostic tests are essential to both support the management and containment of outbreaks, as well as inform appropriate patient care. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (Ag-RDTs) played a major role in this function, enabling widespread testing by untrained individuals, both at home and within health facilities. In East Africa, a number of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs are available; however, there remains little information on their true test performance within the region, in the hands of the health workers routinely carrying out SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. This study contributes test performance data for two commonly used SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs in East Africa, which will help inform the use of these RDTs within the region.

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.