Assessment of the knowledge of graphical symbols labelled on malaria rapid diagnostic tests in four international settings.

BACKGROUND: Graphical symbols on in vitro diagnostics (IVD symbols) replace the need for text in different languages and are used on malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) marketed worldwide. The present study assessed the comprehension of IVD symbols labelled on malaria RDT kits among laboratory staff in four different countries. METHODS: Participants (n = 293) in Belgium (n = 96), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC, n = 87), Cambodia (n = 59) and Cuba (n = 51) were presented with an anonymous questionnaire with IVD symbols extracted from ISO 15223 and EN 980 presented as stand-alone symbols (n = 18) and in context (affixed on RDT packages, n = 16). Responses were open-ended and scored for correctness by local professionals. RESULTS: Presented as stand-alone, three and five IVD symbols were correctly scored for comprehension by 67% and 50% of participants; when contextually presented, five and seven symbols reached the 67% and 50% correct score respectively. 'Batch code' scored best (correctly scored by 71.3% of participants when presented as stand-alone), 'Authorized representative in the European Community' scored worst (1.4% correct). Another six IVD symbols were scored correctly by less than 10% of participants: 'Do not reuse', 'In vitro diagnostic medical device', 'Sufficient for', 'Date of manufacture', 'Authorised representative in EC', and 'Do not use if package is damaged'. Participants in Belgium and Cuba both scored six symbols above the 67% criterion, participants from DRC and Cambodia scored only two and one symbols above this criterion. Low correct scores were observed for safety-related IVD symbols, such as for 'Biological Risk' (42.7%) and 'Do not reuse' (10.9%). CONCLUSION: Comprehension of IVD symbols on RDTs among laboratory staff in four international settings was unsatisfactory. Administrative and outreach procedures should be undertaken to assure their acquaintance by end-users.

CD4 results with a bias larger than hundred cells per microliter can have a significant impact on the clinical decision during treatment initiation of HIV patients.

BACKGROUND: CD4 counts are currently used to assess HIV patients for treatment eligibility and to monitor antiretroviral response to treatment. The emerging point-of-care devices could fill an important gap in resource-limited settings. However, the accuracy of CD4-counting instruments is diverse and data on how CD4 measurement errors have an impact on clinical decisions are lacking. METHODS: Clinicians were queried on the use of CD4 results in their clinical setting. Subsequently, the effect of CD4 measurement errors on treatment initiation was put in a statistical model. Based on clinical CD4 databases from Belgium, Cambodia, and Senegal, the percentage of unchanged clinical decisions was calculated (treatment initiation should start within a 3-month delay [one visit]) for escalating CD4 measurement errors, taking into account the strict or preventive application of CD4 thresholds at 350 or 500 cells/µl used by clinicians. RESULTS: To ensure that the treatment was initiated appropriately for at least 95% of patients, an error of 5 - 10 cells/µl was allowed. This is significantly smaller than the bias of ±50 cells/µl most clinicians considered acceptable. For limits of agreement (LOA, 1.96 x error) of 100 cells/µl, corresponding to most CD4 instrument evaluations, the misclassification rate of patients was found to be 3 - 28% at the threshold of 350 cells/µl (strict or flexible), and 13 - 20% at 500 cells/µl. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum allowed CD4 bias on results from new CD4 technologies should not exceed 50 cells/µl (LOA 100 cells/µl) when applied for treatment initiation, to ensure at least 72% of correct clinical decisions. © 2016 International Clinical Cytometry Society.