A prospective evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care VISITECT CD4 Advanced Disease test in seven countries.

BACKGROUND: CD4 measurement is pivotal in the management of advanced HIV disease. VISITECT® CD4 Advanced Disease (AccuBio Limited, Alva, UK; VISITECT) is an instrument-free, point-of-care, semi-quantitative test allowing visual identification of a CD4 ≤200 cells/µl, or >200 cells/µl from finger-prick or venous blood. METHODS: As part of a diagnostic accuracy study of FUJIFILM SILVAMP TB LAM (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04089423), people living with HIV of ≥18 years old were prospectively recruited in seven countries from outpatient departments if a tuberculosis symptom was present, and from inpatient departments. Participants provided venous blood for CD4 measurement using flow cytometry (reference standard) and finger-prick blood for VISITECT (index text), performed at point-of-care. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of VISITECT to determine a CD4 ≤200 cells/µl were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1604 participants, the median flow cytometry CD4 was 367 (IQR 128-626) cells/µl and 521 (32.5%) had a CD4 ≤200 cells/µl. VISITECT sensitivity was 92.7% (483/521, 95% CI 90.1-94.7%) and specificity was 61.4% (665/1083, 95% CI 58.4-64.3%). For participants with a CD4 between 0-100, 101-200, 201-300, 301-500, and >500 cells/µl, VISITECT misclassified 4.5% (95% CI 2.5-7.2%), 12.5 (95% CI 8.0-18.2%), 74.1% (95% CI 67.0-80.5%), 48.0% (95% CI 42.5-53.6%), and 22.6% (95% CI 19.3-26.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VISITECT's sensitivity, but not specificity, met the World Health Organization's minimal sensitivity and specificity threshold of 80% for point-of-care CD4 tests. VISITECT's quality needs to be assessed and its accuracy optimized. VISITECT´s utility as CD4 triage test should be investigated.

Clinical accuracy of instrument-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, antigen diagnostic tests were frequently used for screening, triage, and diagnosis. Novel instrument-based antigen tests (iAg tests) hold the promise of outperforming their instrument-free, visually-read counterparts. Here, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 iAg tests' clinical accuracy. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, medRxiv, and bioRxiv for articles published before November 7th, 2022, evaluating the accuracy of iAg tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity and used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality and risk of bias. Sub-group analysis was conducted based on Ct value range, IFU-conformity, age, symptom presence and duration, and the variant of concern. RESULTS: We screened the titles and abstracts of 20,431 articles and included 114 publications that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we incorporated three articles sourced from the FIND website, totaling 117 studies encompassing 95,181 individuals, which evaluated the clinical accuracy of 24 commercial COVID-19 iAg tests. The studies varied in risk of bias but showed high applicability. Of 24 iAg tests from 99 studies assessed in the meta-analysis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity compared to molecular testing of a paired NP swab sample were 76.7% (95% CI 73.5 to 79.7) and 98.4% (95% CI 98.0 to 98.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity was noted in individuals with high viral load (99.6% [95% CI 96.8 to 100] at Ct-level ≤ 20) and within the first week of symptom onset (84.6% [95% CI 78.2 to 89.3]), but did not differ between tests conducted as per manufacturer's instructions and those conducted differently, or between point-of-care and lab-based testing. CONCLUSION: Overall, iAg tests have a high pooled specificity but a moderate pooled sensitivity, according to our analysis. The pooled sensitivity increases with lower Ct-values (a proxy for viral load), or within the first week of symptom onset, enabling reliable identification of most COVID-19 cases and highlighting the importance of context in test selection. The study underscores the need for careful evaluation considering performance variations and operational features of iAg tests.

Performance evaluation of a combination Plasmodium dual-antigen CRP rapid diagnostic test in Lambaréné, Gabon.

PURPOSE: The consequent use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) preceding a treatment decision has improved the global management of malaria. A combination RDT, including an inflammation marker to potentially guide antibiotic prescription, could improve the management of acute febrile illness (AFI). METHODS: We performed a prospective, cross-sectional study in Gabon evaluating the STANDARD Malaria/CRP DUO (S-DUO) RDT. Participants aged 2 to 17 years with fever at presentation and/or a history of fever < 7 days were enrolled. Expert microscopy, SD Bioline Malaria Ag P.f/Pan test for malaria detection, and NycoCard CRP device for CRP were used as comparators. AFI cases were classified on a spectrum encompassing bacterial vs. non-bacterial infection. RESULTS: 415 participants with AFI were enrolled. S-DUO RDT sensitivity and specificity for malaria detection vs. microscopy were 99·1% (95·2-100%) and 72·7% (64·3-80·1%); and for CRP detection (20 mg/L and above) 86·9% (80-92%) and 87% (79·2-92·7%), respectively. The difference in CRP levels between bacterial infection (mean = 41·2 mg/L) and other causes of fever, measured from our study population using the Nycocard device, was statistically significant (p < 0·01); CRP precision-recall AUC to distinguish bacterial infection class vs. non-bacterial classifications was 0·79. CONCLUSION: S-DUO RDT is suitable for malaria detection in moderate-to-high malaria transmission settings such as in Lambaréné; however, a CRP band detection limit > 40 mg/L is more adequate for indication of antibiotic prescription for AFI cases in Gabon.

Prospective multicentre accuracy evaluation of the FUJIFILM SILVAMP TB LAM test for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in people living with HIV demonstrates lot-to-lot variability.

There is an urgent need for rapid, non-sputum point-of-care diagnostics to detect tuberculosis. This prospective trial in seven high tuberculosis burden countries evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care urine-based lipoarabinomannan assay FUJIFILM SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) among inpatients and outpatients living with HIV. Diagnostic performance of FujiLAM was assessed against a mycobacterial reference standard (sputum culture, blood culture, and Xpert Ultra from urine and sputum at enrollment, and additional sputum culture ≤7 days from enrollment), an extended mycobacterial reference standard (eMRS), and a composite reference standard including clinical evaluation. Of 1637 participants considered for the analysis, 296 (18%) were tuberculosis positive by eMRS. Median age was 40 years, median CD4 cell count was 369 cells/ul, and 52% were female. Overall FujiLAM sensitivity was 54·4% (95% CI: 48·7-60·0), overall specificity was 85·2% (83·2-87·0) against eMRS. Sensitivity and specificity estimates varied between sites, ranging from 26·5% (95% CI: 17·4%-38·0%) to 73·2% (60·4%-83·0%), and 75·0 (65·0%-82·9%) to 96·5 (92·1%-98·5%), respectively. Post-hoc exploratory analysis identified significant variability in the performance of the six FujiLAM lots used in this study. Lot variability limited interpretation of FujiLAM test performance. Although results with the current version of FujiLAM are too variable for clinical decision-making, the lipoarabinomannan biomarker still holds promise for tuberculosis diagnostics. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04089423).