BackgroundSexually transmitted infections, such as HIV and syphilis, are one of the major health care problems worldwide, especially in low- and middle income countries. HIV screening programmes have been widely used for many years. The introduction of rapid point-of-care tests (RDTs) that can detect both HIV and syphilis, using one single blood specimen, would be a promising tool to integrate the detection of syphilis into HIV programmes and so improve the accessibility of syphilis testing and treatment.MethodsAs part of the World Health Organization pre-qualification of in vitro diagnostics assessment, the laboratory performance of four dual HIV-Syphilis rapid diagnostic tests (SD Bioline HIV/Syphilis Duo, DPP HIV-Syphilis Assay, Multiplo Rapid TP/HIV Antibody Test and Insti Multiplex HIV-1/HIV-2/Syphilis Antibody Test) was assessed using a well characterized multiregional panel of stored sera specimens.ResultsIn total 400 specimens were tested with each assay, resulting in excellent sensitivities and specificities for HIV, ranging from 99.5 to 100% and from 93.5 to 99.5%, respectively. Results obtained for the Treponema pallidum antibodies were lower, with the lowest sensitivity of 73.5% for Multiplo and the highest of 87% for SD Bioline. Specificities ranged from 99.0 to 100%.ConclusionAlthough these results suggest that the tests could further improve in accuracy in detection of treponemal antibodies, their introduction into screening programmes to increase the accessibility of HIV/Syphilis diagnosis and treatment for difficult to reach populations in the world is promising.

SummaryBackgroundThe ability of individuals to use HIV self-tests correctly is debated. To inform the 2016 WHO recommendation on HIV self-testing, we assessed the reliability and performance of HIV rapid diagnostic tests when used by self-testers.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PopLine, and Embase, conference abstracts, and additional grey literature between Jan 1, 1995, and April 30, 2016, for observational and experimental studies reporting on HIV self-testing performance. We excluded studies evaluating home specimen collection because patients did not interpret their own test results. We extracted data independently, using standardised extraction forms. Outcomes of interest were agreement between self-testers and health-care workers, sensitivity, and specificity. We calculated κ to establish the level of agreement and pooled κ estimates using a random-effects model, by approach (directly assisted or unassisted) and type of specimen (blood or oral fluid). We examined heterogeneity with the I2 statistic.Findings25 studies met inclusion criteria (22 to 5662 participants). Quality assessment with QUADAS-2 showed studies had low risk of bias and incomplete reporting in accordance with the STARD checklist. Raw proportion of agreement ranged from 85·4% to 100%, and reported κ ranged from fair (κ 0·277, p<0·001) to almost perfect (κ 0·99, n=25). Pooled κ suggested almost perfect agreement for both types of approaches (directly assisted 0·98, 95% CI 0·96–0·99 and unassisted 0·97, 0·96–0·98; I2=34·5%, 0–97·8). Excluding two outliers, sensitivity and specificity was higher for blood-based rapid diagnostic tests (4/16) compared with oral fluid rapid diagnostic tests (13/16). The most common error that affected test performance was incorrect specimen collection (oral swab or finger prick). Study limitations included the use of different reference standards and no disaggregation of results by individuals taking antiretrovirals.InterpretationSelf-testers can reliably and accurately do HIV rapid diagnostic tests, as compared with trained health-care workers. Errors in performance might be reduced through the improvement of rapid diagnostic tests for self-testing, particularly to make sample collection easier and to simplify instructions for use.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Unitaid.

No abstract

BackgroundCD4 T-cell counts are widely used to assess treatment eligibility and to follow-up HIV-infected patients. The World Health Organization prequalification of in vitro diagnostics program conducted a performance evaluation of the FACSPresto (BD Biosciences), a new point-of-care instrument to measure absolute CD4-T cell (CD4) counts and percentages in venous and capillary blood samples from HIV-infected patients.MethodsPatients were recruited in Belgium (200 patients) and in Tanzania (247 patients). Venous blood samples were analyzed in two nearby reference laboratories. In addition, nurses/technicians collected a capillary blood sample by finger prick directly into a FACSPresto CD4 cartridge. Assay precision was assessed on fresh blood and on external quality control samples. Trueness (bias) was assessed by comparing results from FACSPresto with the reference (single-platform FACSCalibur). Clinical misclassification was measured at 200, 350 and 500 cells/μL thresholds.ResultsIntra-assay precision was < 6%, and inter-assay < 8%. CD4 results from FACSPresto and reference method resulted in regression slopes of 0.99–1.11 using either venous or capillary blood. Correlation was better for venous than for capillary blood (minimum 0.97 vs 0.93 respectively). Capillary blood resulted in a larger bias than venous blood, with 24 and 83 cells/μL for absolute CD4 counts on capillary blood in Antwerp and Dar es Salaam respectively, vs 12 and 41 cells/μL on venous blood. Bias on CD4% was < 1% on both venous and capillary blood, and was proportionally better than for absolute CD4 counts. Clinical misclassification was in line with the average overestimation, showing a very good specificity, but sensitivity around 70–90%. The rejection rate was 11% on first reading, leading to 6% of all samples without final result after a second reading.ConclusionsThe FACSPresto performed very well on venous blood samples, and well on capillary blood samples.

Blood transfusion remains a routine life‐saving medical procedure that helps replace blood lost due to surgery, injury or disease. The quality of transfused blood is crucial in this process as blood donors must be free of transfusion‐transmissible infections and donated blood should be compatible to that of the recipient. The quality of donated blood could be affected by the quality of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) used in the screening process. Consequently, the need for high‐quality, safe and well‐performing IVDs for use in transfusion medicine arises, accompanied by the need for tight regulations in this domain. In the European Union, the new IVD Regulation will replace the existing IVD Directive within a five‐year transitional period. Manufacturers of IVDs are expected to fully comply with the new Regulation by 26 May 2022. In this review, we address the major differences relating to marketing authorization and testing between this new Regulation and its predecessor. We further present the main elements of the prequalification assessment introduced by the WHO for IVDs, including disease‐specific IVDs for blood screening laboratories.

BackgroundCD4 T-cell counts are still widely used to assess treatment eligibility and follow-up of HIV-infected patients. The World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification of in vitro diagnostics requested a manufacturer independent laboratory evaluation of the analytical performance at the Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM) Antwerp, Belgium, of the Muse Auto CD4/CD4% system (Millipore), a new small capillary-flow cytometer dedicated to count absolute CD4-T cells and percentages in venous blood samples from HIV-infected patients.MethodsTwo hundred and fifty (250) patients were recruited from the HIV outpatient clinic at ITM. Accuracy and precision of CD4 T cell counting on fresh EDTA anticoagulated venous blood samples were assessed in the laboratory on a Muse Auto CD4/CD4% system. Extensive precision analyses were performed both on fresh blood and on normal and low stabilized whole blood controls. Accuracy ((bias) was assessed by comparing results from Muse CD4/CD4% to the reference (single-platform FACSCalibur). Clinical misclassification was measured at 500, 350, 200 and 100 cells/μL thresholds.ResultsIntra-assay precision was < 5%, and inter-assay was < 9%. CD4 T cell counts measured on Muse Auto CD4/CD4% System and on the reference instrument resulted in regression slopes of 0.97 for absolute counts and 1.03 for CD4 T cell percentages and a correlation coefficient of 0.99 for both. The average absolute bias as compared to the reference was negligible (4 cells/μL or 0.5%). The absolute average bias on CD4 T cell percentages was < 1%. Clinical misclassification at different CD4 T cell thresholds was small resulting in sensitivities and specificities equal or >90% at all thresholds except at 100 cells/μL (sensitivity = 87%). All samples could be analyzed as there was no repetitive rejection errors recorded.ConclusionsThe Muse Auto CD4/CD4% System performed very well on fresh venous blood samples and met all WHO acceptance criteria for analytical performance of CD4 technologies.