Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Division of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 3;15(12):e0243040. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243040. eCollection 2020.
This study evaluated performance of two hepatitis C virus (HCV) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) performed by intended users in resource-limited settings.
Testing was conducted at three facilities in two countries (Georgia, Cambodia) using matched fingerstick whole blood, plasma and serum samples. Investigational RDTs were compared with a composite reference standard (CRS) comprised of three laboratory tests, and a reference RDT.
In matched samples from 489 HCV positive and 967 HCV negative participants, specificity with both investigational RDTs was high using either reference method (≥98.4% in all sample types). Sensitivity was lower in whole blood versus plasma and serum for both RDTs compared with the CRS (86.5-91.4% vs 97.5-98.0% and 97.3-97.1%) and reference RDT (93.6-97.8% vs 100% and 99.4%). Sensitivity improved when considering only samples with detectable HCV viral load.
Sensitivity was highest in serum and plasma versus whole blood. The World Health Organization prequalification criterion (≥98%) was narrowly missed by both RDTs in serum, and one in plasma, possibly due to the intended user factor. Performance in whole blood was considered adequate, given potential roles of HCV infection history, improved sensitivity with detectable viral load and performance similarities to the reference RDT.
本研究评估了两种丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)快速诊断检测试剂(RDT)在资源有限环境下的预期使用者的检测性能。
在两国(格鲁吉亚、柬埔寨)的三个机构中使用匹配的指尖全血、血浆和血清样本进行检测。研究性 RDT 与由三种实验室检测组成的综合参考标准(CRS)和参考 RDT 进行比较。
在来自 489 名 HCV 阳性和 967 名 HCV 阴性参与者的匹配样本中,两种研究性 RDT 使用任一参考方法的特异性均很高(所有样本类型均≥98.4%)。与 CRS(全血中为 86.5-91.4%,血浆和血清中为 97.5-98.0%和 97.3-97.1%)和参考 RDT(全血中为 93.6-97.8%,血浆和血清中为 100%和 99.4%)相比,两种 RDT 在全血中的敏感性均较低。当仅考虑可检测 HCV 病毒载量的样本时,敏感性会提高。
血清和血浆中的敏感性高于全血。两种 RDT 在血清中的敏感性均接近世界卫生组织预认证标准(≥98%),但有一种 RDT 在血浆中的敏感性未达到该标准,这可能是由于预期使用者的因素。鉴于 HCV 感染史、可检测病毒载量时的敏感性提高以及与参考 RDT 的性能相似性,全血中的性能被认为是足够的。