Comparative performance study of three Ebola rapid diagnostic tests in Guinea.

BACKGROUND: The 2014/15 Ebola outbreak in West Africa resulted in 11,000 deaths and massive strain on local health systems, and the ongoing outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo has afflicted more than 3000 people. Accurate, rapid Ebola diagnostics suitable for field deployment would enable prompt identification and effective response to future outbreaks, yet remain largely unavailable. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of three novel rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs): an Ebola, an Ebola-Malaria, and a Fever Panel test that includes Ebola, all from a single manufacturer. METHODS: We evaluated the three RDTs in 109 Ebola-positive and 96 Ebola-negative stored serum samples collected during the outbreak in Guinea in 2014/15, and tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Sensitivity, specificity, and overall percent agreement were calculated for each RDT using RT-PCR as a reference standard, stratified by Ct value ranges. RESULTS: All tests performed with high accuracy on samples with low Ct value (high viral load). The Fever Panel test performed with the highest accuracy, with a sensitivity of 89.9% and specificity of 90.6%. The Ebola and Ebola-Malaria tests performed comparably to each other: sensitivity was 77.1 and 78% respectively, and specificity was 91.7% for the Ebola test and 95.8% for the Ebola-Malaria test. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated the accuracy of three novel rapid diagnostic tests for Ebola. The tests may have significant public health relevance, particularly the Fever Panel test, which detects seven pathogens including Ebola. Given limitations to the study resulting from uncertain sample quality, further evaluation is warranted. All tests performed with highest accuracy on samples with low Ct value (high viral load), and the data presented here suggests that these RDTs may be useful for point-of-care diagnosis of cases in the context of an outbreak. Restrictions to their use in non-severe Ebola cases or for longitudinal monitoring, when viral loads are lower, may be appropriate. Highlighting the challenge in developing and evaluating Ebola RDTs, there were concerns regarding sample integrity and reference testing, and there is a need for additional research to validate these assays.

A point-of-care diagnostic for differentiating Ebola from endemic febrile diseases.

Hemorrhagic fever outbreaks such as Ebola are difficult to detect and control because of the lack of low-cost, easily deployable diagnostics and because initial clinical symptoms mimic other endemic diseases such as malaria. Current molecular diagnostic methods such as polymerase chain reaction require trained personnel and laboratory infrastructure, hindering diagnostics at the point of need. Although rapid tests such as lateral flow can be broadly deployed, they are typically not well-suited for differentiating among multiple diseases presenting with similar symptoms. Early detection and control of Ebola outbreaks require simple, easy-to-use assays that can detect and differentiate infection with Ebola virus from other more common febrile diseases. Here, we developed and tested an immunoassay technology that uses surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) tags to simultaneously detect antigens from Ebola, Lassa, and malaria within a single blood sample. Results are provided in <30 min for individual or batched samples. Using 190 clinical samples collected from the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak, along with 163 malaria positives and 233 negative controls, we demonstrated Ebola detection with 90.0% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity and malaria detection with 100.0% sensitivity and 99.6% specificity. These results, along with corresponding live virus and nonhuman primate testing of an Ebola, Lassa, and malaria 3-plex assay, indicate the potential of the SERS technology as an important tool for outbreak detection and clinical triage in low-resource settings.