Limited threat of Plasmodium falciparum pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletion to the utility of HRP2-based malaria RDTs in Northern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein-2 (PfHRP2) are exclusively deployed in Uganda, but deletion of the pfhrp2/3 target gene threatens their usefulness as malaria diagnosis and surveillance tools. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at 40 sites across four regions of Uganda in Acholi, Lango, W. Nile and Karamoja from March 2021 to June 2023. Symptomatic malaria suspected patients were recruited and screened with both HRP2 and pan lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) detecting RDTs. Dried blood spots (DBS) were collected from all patients and a random subset were used for genomic analysis to confirm parasite species and pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene status. Plasmodium species was determined using a conventional multiplex PCR while pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions were determined using a real-time multiplex qPCR. Expression of the HRP2 protein antigen in a subset of samples was further assessed using a ELISA. RESULTS: Out of 2435 symptomatic patients tested for malaria, 1504 (61.8%) were positive on pLDH RDT. Overall, qPCR confirmed single pfhrp2 gene deletion in 1 out of 416 (0.2%) randomly selected samples that were confirmed of P. falciparum mono-infections. CONCLUSION: These findings show limited threat of pfhrp2/3 gene deletions in the survey areas suggesting that HRP2 RDTs are still useful diagnostic tools for surveillance and diagnosis of P. falciparum malaria infections in symptomatic patients in this setting. Periodic genomic surveillance is warranted to monitor the frequency and trend of gene deletions and its effect on RDTs.

Genetic variants causing G6PD deficiency: Clinical and biochemical data support new WHO classification.

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency in erythrocytes causes acute haemolytic anaemia upon exposure to fava beans, drugs, or infection; and it predisposes to neonatal jaundice. The polymorphism of the X-linked G6PD gene has been studied extensively: allele frequencies of up to 25% of different G6PD deficient variants are known in many populations; variants that cause chronic non-spherocytic haemolytic anaemia (CNSHA) are instead all rare. WHO recommends G6PD testing to guide 8-aminoquinolines administration to prevent relapse of Plasmodium vivax infection. From a literature review focused on polymorphic G6PD variants we have retrieved G6PD activity values of 2291 males, and for the mean residual red cell G6PD activity of 16 common variants we have obtained reliable estimates, that range from 1.9% to 33%. There is variation in different datasets: for most variants most G6PD deficient males have a G6PD activity below 30% of normal. There is a direct relationship between residual G6PD activity and substrate affinity (Km G6P ), suggesting a mechanism whereby polymorphic G6PD deficient variants do not entail CNSHA. Extensive overlap in G6PD activity values of individuals with different variants, and no clustering of mean values above or below 10% support the merger of class II and class III variants.

Plasmodium falciparum pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 Gene Deletions and Relatedness to Other Global Isolates, Djibouti, 2019-2020.

Deletions of pfhrp2 and paralogue pfhrp3 (pfhrp2/3) genes threaten Plasmodium falciparum diagnosis by rapid diagnostic test. We examined 1,002 samples from suspected malaria patients in Djibouti City, Djibouti, to investigate pfhrp2/3 deletions. We performed assays for Plasmodium antigen carriage, pfhrp2/3 genotyping, and sequencing for 7 neutral microsatellites to assess relatedness. By PCR assay, 311 (31.0%) samples tested positive for P. falciparum infection, and 296 (95.2%) were successfully genotyped; 37 (12.5%) samples were pfhrp2+/pfhrp3+, 51 (17.2%) were pfhrp2+/pfhrp3-, 5 (1.7%) were pfhrp2-/pfhrp3+, and 203 (68.6%) were pfhrp2-/pfhrp3-. Histidine-rich protein 2/3 antigen concentrations were reduced with corresponding gene deletions. Djibouti P. falciparum is closely related to Ethiopia and Eritrea parasites (pairwise GST 0.68 [Ethiopia] and 0.77 [Eritrea]). P. falciparum with deletions in pfhrp2/3 genes were highly prevalent in Djibouti City in 2019-2020; they appear to have arisen de novo within the Horn of Africa and have not been imported.

Screening strategies and laboratory assays to support Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein deletion surveillance: where we are and what is needed.

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) have been an important tool for malaria diagnosis, especially in resource-limited settings lacking quality microscopy. Plasmodium falciparum parasites with deletion of the pfhrp2 gene encoding this antigen have now been identified in dozens of countries across Asia, Africa, and South America, with new reports revealing a high prevalence of deletions in some selected regions. To determine whether HRP2-based RDTs are appropriate for continued use in a locality, focused surveys and/or surveillance activities of the endemic P. falciparum population are needed. Various survey and laboratory methods have been used to determine parasite HRP2 phenotype and pfhrp2 genotype, and the data collected by these different methods need to be interpreted in the appropriate context of survey and assay utilized. Expression of the HRP2 antigen can be evaluated using point-of-care RDTs or laboratory-based immunoassays, but confirmation of a deletion (or mutation) of pfhrp2 requires more intensive laboratory molecular assays, and new tools and strategies for rigorous but practical data collection are particularly needed for large surveys. Because malaria diagnostic strategies are typically developed at the national level, nationally representative surveys and/or surveillance that encompass broad geographical areas and large populations may be required. Here is discussed contemporary assays for the phenotypic and genotypic evaluation of P. falciparum HRP2 status, consider their strengths and weaknesses, and highlight key concepts relevant to timely and resource-conscious workflows required for efficient diagnostic policy decision making.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

A comparative evaluation of mobile medical APPS (MMAS) for reading and interpreting malaria rapid diagnostic tests.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends confirmatory diagnosis by microscopy or malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in patients with suspected malaria. In recent years, mobile medical applications (MMAs), which can interpret RDT test results have entered the market. To evaluate the performance of commercially available MMAs, an evaluation was conducted by comparing RDT results read by MMAs to RDT results read by the human eye. METHODS: Five different MMAs were evaluated on six different RDT products using cultured Plasmodium falciparum blood samples at five dilutions ranging from 20 to 1000 parasites (p)/microlitre (µl) and malaria negative blood samples. The RDTs were performed in a controlled, laboratory setting by a trained operator who visually read the RDT results. A second trained operator then used the MMAs to read the RDT results. Sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for the RDTs were calculated in a Bayesian framework using mixed models. RESULTS: The RDT Sn of the P. falciparum (Pf) test line, when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (74% vs. average 47%) at samples of 20 p/µl. In higher density samples, the Sn was comparable to the human eye (97%) for three MMAs. The RDT Sn of test lines that detect all Plasmodium species (Pan line), when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (79% vs. average 56%) across all densities. The RDT Sp, when read by the human eye or MMAs was 99% for both the Pf and Pan test lines across all densities. CONCLUSIONS: The study results show that in a laboratory setting, most MMAs produced similar results interpreting the Pf test line of RDTs at parasite densities typically found in patients that experience malaria symptoms (> 100 p/µl) compared to the human eye. At low parasite densities for the Pf line and across all parasite densities for the Pan line, MMAs were less accurate than the human eye. Future efforts should focus on improving the band/line detection at lower band intensities and evaluating additional MMA functionalities like the ability to identify and classify RDT errors or anomalies.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.

Prevalence of Plasmodium falciparum lacking histidine-rich proteins 2 and 3: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate prevalence estimates and evaluate the quality of studies reporting Plasmodium falciparum lacking histidine-rich proteins 2 and 3, to inform an international response plan. METHODS: We searched five online databases, without language restriction, for articles reporting original data on Plasmodium falciparum-infected patients with deletions of the pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 genes (pfhrp2/3). We calculated prevalence estimates of pfhrp2/3 deletions and mapped the data by country. The denominator was all P. falciparum-positive samples testing positive by microscopy and confirmed positive by species-specific polymerase chain reaction testing (PCR). If microscopy was not performed, we used the number of samples based on a different diagnostic method or PCR alone. We scored studies for risk of bias and the quality of laboratory methods using a standardized scoring system. FINDINGS: A total of 38 articles reporting 55 studies from 32 countries and one territory worldwide were included in the review. We found considerable heterogeneity in the populations studied, methods used and estimated prevalence of P. falciparum parasites with pfhrp2/3 deletions. The derived prevalence of pfhrp2 deletions ranged from 0% to 100%, including focal areas in South America and Africa. Only three studies (5%) fulfilled all seven criteria for study quality. CONCLUSION: The lack of representative surveys or consistency in study design impairs evaluations of the risk of false-negative results in malaria diagnosis due to pfhrp2/3 deletions. Accurate mapping and strengthened monitoring of the prevalence of pfhrp2/3 deletions is needed, along with harmonized methods that facilitate comparisons across studies.

Impact of Plasmodium falciparum gene deletions on malaria rapid diagnostic test performance.

BACKGROUND: Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have greatly improved access to diagnosis in endemic countries. Most RDTs detect Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2), but their sensitivity is seriously threatened by the emergence of pfhrp2-deleted parasites. RDTs detecting P. falciparum or pan-lactate dehydrogenase (Pf- or pan-LDH) provide alternatives. The objective of this study was to systematically assess the performance of malaria RDTs against well-characterized pfhrp2-deleted P. falciparum parasites. METHODS: Thirty-two RDTs were tested against 100 wild-type clinical isolates (200 parasites/µL), and 40 samples from 10 culture-adapted and clinical isolates of pfhrp2-deleted parasites. Wild-type and pfhrp2-deleted parasites had comparable Pf-LDH concentrations. Pf-LDH-detecting RDTs were also tested against 18 clinical isolates at higher density (2,000 parasites/µL) lacking both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3. RESULTS: RDT positivity against pfhrp2-deleted parasites was highest (> 94%) for the two pan-LDH-only RDTs. The positivity rate for the nine Pf-LDH-detecting RDTs varied widely, with similar median positivity between double-deleted (pfhrp2/3 negative; 63.9%) and single-deleted (pfhrp2-negative/pfhrp3-positive; 59.1%) parasites, both lower than against wild-type P. falciparum (93.8%). Median positivity for HRP2-detecting RDTs against 22 single-deleted parasites was 69.9 and 35.2% for HRP2-only and HRP2-combination RDTs, respectively, compared to 96.0 and 92.5% for wild-type parasites. Eight of nine Pf-LDH RDTs detected all clinical, double-deleted samples at 2,000 parasites/µL. CONCLUSIONS: The pan-LDH-only RDTs evaluated performed well. Performance of Pf-LDH-detecting RDTs against wild-type P. falciparum does not necessarily predict performance against pfhrp2-deleted parasites. Furthermore, many, but not all HRP2-based RDTs, detect pfhrp2-negative/pfhrp3-positive samples, with implications for the HRP2-based RDT screening approach for detection and surveillance of HRP2-negative parasites.

Molecular surveillance reveals the presence of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions in Plasmodium falciparum parasite populations in Uganda, 2017-2019.

BACKGROUND: Histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP2)-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are the only RDTs recommended for malaria diagnosis in Uganda. However, the emergence of Plasmodium falciparum histidine rich protein 2 and 3 (pfhrp2 and pfhrp3) gene deletions threatens their usefulness as malaria diagnostic and surveillance tools. The pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions surveillance was conducted in P. falciparum parasite populations in Uganda. METHODS: Three-hundred (n = 300) P. falciparum isolates collected from cross-sectional malaria surveys in symptomatic individuals in 48 districts of eastern and western Uganda were analysed for the presence of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes. Presence of parasite DNA was confirmed by PCR amplification of the 18s rRNA gene, msp1 and msp2 single copy genes. Presence or absence of deletions was confirmed by amplification of exon1 and exon2 of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 using gene specific PCR. RESULTS: Overall, pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions were detected in 29/300 (9.7%, 95% CI 6.6-13.6%) parasite isolates. The pfhrp2 gene was deleted in 10/300 (3.3%, 95% CI 1.6-6.0%) isolates, pfhrp3 in 9/300 (3.0%, 95% CI 1.4-5.6%) while both pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 were deleted in 10/300 (3.3%, 95% CI 1.6-6.0%) parasite isolates. Proportion of pfhrp2/3 deletions was higher in the eastern 14.7% (95% CI 9.7-20.0%) compared to the western region 3.1% (95% CI 0.8-7.7%), p = 0.001. Geographical location was associated with gene deletions aOR 6.25 (2.02-23.55), p = 0.003. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale survey reporting the presence of pfhrp2/3 gene deletions in P. falciparum isolates in Uganda. Roll out of RDTs for malaria diagnosis should take into consideration the existence of pfhrp2/3 gene deletions particularly in areas where they were detected. Periodic pfhrp2/3 surveys are recommended to inform future decisions for deployment of alternative RDTs.

Keep the quality high: the benefits of lot testing for the quality control of malaria rapid diagnostic tests.

BACKGROUND: The production and use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has risen dramatically over the past 20 years. In view of weak or non-existing in vitro diagnostics (IVD) regulations and post-marketing surveillance (PMS) systems in malaria endemic countries, the World Health Organization, later joined by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, established an independent, centralized performance evaluation and Lot Testing (LT) programme to safeguard against poor quality of RDTs being distributed through the public health sector of malaria endemic countries. RDT performances and manufacturer quality management systems have evolved over the past decade raising questions about the future need for a centralized LT programme. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2017, 6056 lots have been evaluated, representing approximately 1.6 Billion RDTs. A total of 69 lots (1.1%) failed the quality control. Of these failures, 26 were detected at receipt of the RDT lot in the LT laboratory, representing an estimated 7.9 million poor quality RDTs, and LT requesters were advised that RDTs were not of sufficient quality for use in patient management. Forty-three were detected after long-term storage in the laboratory, of which 24 (56%) were found to be due to a major issue with insufficient buffer volume in single use buffer vials, others predominantly showing loss of sensitivity. The annual cost of running the programme, based on expenses recorded in years 2014-2016, an estimated volume of 700 lots per year and including replenishment of quality control samples, was estimated at US$ 178,500 ($US 255 per lot tested). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the clear benefits of the centralized LT programme and its low cost compared with the potential costs of each country establishing its own PMS system for RDTs, funding concerns have made its future beyond 2020 uncertain. In order to manage the risks of misdiagnosis due to low quality RDTs, and to ensure the continued safety and reliability of malaria case management, there is a need to ensure that an effective and implementable approach to RDT quality control continues to be available to programmes in endemic countries.

WHO malaria nucleic acid amplification test external quality assessment scheme: results of distribution programmes one to three.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends parasite-based diagnosis of malaria. In recent years, there has been surge in the use of various kinds of nucleic-acid amplification based tests (NAATs) for detection and identification of Plasmodium spp. to support clinical care in high-resource settings and clinical and epidemiological research worldwide. However, these tests are not without challenges, including lack (or limited use) of standards and lack of reproducibility, due in part to variation in protocols amongst laboratories. Therefore, there is a need for rigorous quality control, including a robust external quality assessment (EQA) scheme targeted towards malaria NAATs. To this effect, the WHO Global Malaria Programme worked with the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) Parasitology and with technical experts to launch a global NAAT EQA scheme in January 2017. METHODS: Panels of NAAT EQA specimens containing five major species of human-infecting Plasmodium at various parasite concentrations and negative samples were created in lyophilized blood (LB) and dried blood spot (DBS) formats. Two distributions per year were sent, containing five LB and five DBS specimens. Samples were tested and validated by six expert referee laboratories prior to distribution. Between 37 and 45 laboratories participated in each distribution and submitted results using the online submission portal of UK NEQAS. Participants were scored based on their laboratory's stated capacity to identify Plasmodium species, and individual laboratory reports were sent which included performance comparison with anonymized peers. RESULTS: Analysis of the first three distributions revealed that the factors that most significantly affected performance were sample format (DBS vs LB), species and parasite density, while laboratory location and the reported methodology used (type of nucleic acid extraction, amplification, or DNA vs RNA target) did not significantly affect performance. Referee laboratories performed better than non-referee laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, malaria NAAT assays now inform a range of clinical, epidemiological and research investigations. EQA schemes offer a way for laboratories to assess and improve their performance, which is critical to safeguarding the reliability of data and diagnoses especially in situations where various NAAT methodologies and protocols are in use.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.

pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 Gene Deletions That Affect Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Plasmodium falciparum: Analysis of Archived Blood Samples From 3 African Countries.

BACKGROUND: Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) that target histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) are important tools for Plasmodium falciparum diagnosis. Parasites with pfhrp2/3 gene deletions threaten the use of these mRDTs and have been reported in Africa, Asia, and South America. We studied blood samples from 3 African countries to determine if these gene deletions were present. METHODS: We analyzed 911 dried blood spots from Ghana (n = 165), Tanzania (n = 176), and Uganda (n = 570). Plasmodium falciparum infection was confirmed by 18S rDNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and pfhrp2/3 genes were genotyped. True pfhrp2/3 gene deletions were confirmed if samples were (1) microscopy positive; (2) 18S rDNA PCR positive; (3) positive for merozoite surface protein genes by PCR or positive by loop-mediated isothermal amplification; or (4) quantitative PCR positive with >5 parasites/µL. RESULTS: No pfhrp2/3 deletions were detected in samples from Ghana, but deletions were identified in Tanzania (3 pfhrp2; 2 pfhrp3) and Uganda (7 pfhrp2; 2 pfhrp3). Of the 10 samples with pfhrp2 deletions, 9 tested negative by HRP2-based mRDT. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of pfhrp2/3 deletions in Tanzania and Uganda, along with reports of pfhrp2/3-deleted parasites in neighboring countries, reinforces the need for systematic surveillance to monitor the reliability of mRDTs in malaria-endemic countries.

A review of the WHO malaria rapid diagnostic test product testing programme (2008-2018): performance, procurement and policy.

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) emerged in the early 1990s into largely unregulated markets, and uncertain field performance was a major concern for the acceptance of tests for malaria case management. This, combined with the need to guide procurement decisions of UN agencies and WHO Member States, led to the creation of an independent, internationally coordinated RDT evaluation programme aiming to provide comparative performance data of commercially available RDTs. Products were assessed against Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax samples diluted to two densities, along with malaria-negative samples from healthy individuals, and from people with immunological abnormalities or non-malarial infections. Three measures were established as indicators of performance, (i) panel detection score (PDS) determined against low density panels prepared from P. falciparum and P. vivax wild-type samples, (ii) false positive rate, and (iii) invalid rate, and minimum criteria defined. Over eight rounds of the programme, 332 products were tested. Between Rounds 1 and 8, substantial improvements were seen in all performance measures. The number of products meeting all criteria increased from 26.8% (11/41) in Round 1, to 79.4% (27/34) in Round 8. While products submitted to further evaluation rounds under compulsory re-testing did not show improvement, those voluntarily resubmitted showed significant increases in P. falciparum (p = 0.002) and P. vivax PDS (p < 0.001), with more products meeting the criteria upon re-testing. Through this programme, the differentiation of products based on comparative performance, combined with policy changes has been influential in the acceptance of malaria RDTs as a case-management tool, enabling a policy of parasite-based diagnosis prior to treatment. Publication of product testing results has produced a transparent market allowing users and procurers to clearly identify appropriate products for their situation, and could form a model for introduction of other, broad-scale diagnostics.

Major Threat to Malaria Control Programs by Plasmodium falciparum Lacking Histidine-Rich Protein 2, Eritrea.

False-negative results for Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein (HRP) 2-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are increasing in Eritrea. We investigated HRP gene 2/3 (pfhrp2/pfhrp3) status in 50 infected patients at 2 hospitals. We showed that 80.8% (21/26) of patients at Ghindae Hospital and 41.7% (10/24) at Massawa Hospital were infected with pfhrp2-negative parasites and 92.3% (24/26) of patients at Ghindae Hospital and 70.8% (17/24) at Massawa Hospital were infected with pfhrp3-negative parasites. Parasite densities between pfhrp2-positive and pfhrp2-negative patients were comparable. All pfhrp2-negative samples had no detectable HRP2/3 antigen and showed negative results for HRP2-based RDTs. pfhrp2-negative parasites were genetically less diverse and formed 2 clusters with no close relationships to parasites from Peru. These parasites probably emerged independently by selection in Eritrea. High prevalence of pfhrp2-negative parasites caused a high rate of false-negative results for RDTs. Determining prevalence of pfhrp2-negative parasites is urgently needed in neighboring countries to assist case management policies.

Private sector malaria RDT initiative in Nigeria: lessons from an end-of-project stakeholder engagement meeting.

The malaria rapid diagnosis testing (RDT) landscape is rapidly evolving in health care delivery in Nigeria with many stakeholders playing or having potential for critical roles. A recent UNITAID grant supported a pilot project on the deployment of quality-assured RDTs among formal and informal private service outlets in three states in Nigeria. This paper describes findings from a series of stakeholder engagement meetings held at the conclusion of the project. The agreed meeting structure was a combination of plenary presentations, structured facilitated discussions, and nominal group techniques to achieve consensus. Rapporteurs recorded the meeting proceeding and summaries of the major areas of discussion and consensus points through a retrospective thematic analysis of the submitted meeting reports. Key findings indicate that private providers were confident in the use of RDTs for malaria diagnosis and believed it has improved the quality of their services. However, concerns were raised about continued access to quality-assured RDT kits. Going forward, stakeholders recommended increasing client-driven demand, and continuous training and supervision of providers through integration with existing monitoring and supervision mechanisms.

Integrated knowledge translation in population health intervention research: a case study of implementation and outcomes from a school-based project.

BACKGROUND: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is encouraged in population health intervention research (PHIR) to ensure the co-production of policy-relevant research, yet there is little published literature that reports its implementation and outcomes. The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate the IKT approach used in a school-based PHIR project to understand how the research informed policy and practice and identify what influenced the IKT process. METHODS: A case study approach was used to provide an in-depth description of the IKT process and understand the co-production and application of research evidence. Data were collected through document review, a survey with all elementary school principals in the school board (n = 18) following dissemination of School Reports and interviews with the IKT research team (including two researchers and three knowledge users). RESULTS: Approximately half of the principals reported reading their School Report (52%) and almost all of these principals attributed the partial or full adoption, or implementation, of a new practice as a result of using the information (89%). Key themes related to the IKT process emerged across the interviews, including supportive relationships, role clarity, competing priorities and the complexities of population health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that, while IKT can support policy and practice, it can be challenging to maintain engagement due to differing priorities and role ambiguity. Additional recognition, investment and research would enable better implementation of the approach, thereby bridging the gap between research, policy and practice.

The Complexities of Family Caregiving at Work: A Mixed-Methods Study.

The current project examined the impact of caregiving and caregiving-work conflict on employees' well-being. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (QUAN→qual) was utilized, and a total of 880 employees from a large health-care plan employer completed an online survey. Forty-five caregivers who completed the survey also participated in one of the five focus groups held 1 to 2 months later. Employed caregivers were significantly ( p < .05) more likely to indicate poorer physical and mental health than noncaregivers; among caregivers ( n = 370), caregiving-work conflict emerged as the most significant predictor of well-being and fully mediated the empirical relationship between burden and well-being. The focus group findings complemented the quantitative results; many of the challenges employed caregivers experience stem from their ability or inability to effectively balance their employment and caregiving roles. The results suggest the need to focus on caregiving-work conflict when constructing new or translating existing evidence-based caregiver interventions.