BackgroundThe World Health Organization recommends universal and quality-controlled screening of blood donations for the major transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs): human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and syphilis. The study objectives were to determine the seroprevalence of these TTIs among blood donors at the Provincial Hospital of Tete, Mozambique, and to assess the local pre-donation screening performance.MethodsAll consenting voluntary and replacement candidate blood donors were consecutively included from February to May 2009. Sera of all candidates, independent of deferral by questionnaire, were submitted to screening with quality-assured rapid or simple assays for HIV, HBV surface antigen (HBsAg), HCV and syphilis. Assays locally used by the blood bank for HBV and syphilis screening were run in parallel to quality-assured external assays supplied during the study, and all discordant samples were submitted to confirmation testing in reference laboratories in Mozambique and Belgium.ResultsOf 750 consenting candidates (50.5% of voluntary donors), 71 (9.5%) were deferred by the questionnaire, including 38 specifically because of risk behavior for TTI. Of the 679 non-deferred candidates, 127 (18.7%) had serological confirmation of at least one TTI, with a lower prevalence in voluntary than in replacement donors (15.2% versus 22.4%, p = 0.016). Seroprevalence of HIV, HBsAg and syphilis infections was 8.5%, 10.6 % and 1.2%. No confirmed HCV infection was found. Seroprevalence of TTIs was similar in the 38 candidates deferred for TTI risk as in the non-deferred group, except for HBsAg (26.3 % versus 10.6 %; p = 0.005). The local assays used for HBV and syphilis had sensitivities of 98.4% and 100% and specificities of 80.4% and 98.8% respectively. This resulted in the rejection of 110 of the 679 blood donations (16.2%) because of false positive results.ConclusionsThe seroprevalence of TTIs after questionnaire screening is high in Tete, Mozambique, but HCV infection does not appear as a major issue. The questionnaire did not exclude effectively HIV-infected donor candidates, while the locally used assays led to unnecessary rejection of many safe donations. A contextualized questionnaire and consistent use of quality-assured assays would considerably improve the current screening procedure for blood donation.

BackgroundProzone means false-negative or false-low results in antigen-antibody reactions, due to an excess of either antigen or antibody. The present study prospectively assessed its frequency for malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and Plasmodium falciparum samples in an endemic field setting.MethodsFrom January to April 2010, blood samples with P. falciparum high parasitaemia (≥ 4% red blood cells infected) were obtained from patients presenting at the Provincial Hospital of Tete (Mozambique). Samples were tested undiluted and 10-fold diluted in saline with a panel of RDTs and results were scored for line intensity (no line visible, faint, weak, medium and strong). Prozone was defined as a sample which showed no visible test line or a faint or weak test line when tested undiluted, and a visible test line of higher intensity when tested 10-fold diluted, as observed by two blinded observers and upon duplicate testing.ResultsA total of 873/7,543 (11.6%) samples showed P. falciparum, 92 (10.5%) had high parasitaemia and 76 were available for prozone testing. None of the two Pf-pLDH RDTs, but all six HRP-2 RDTs showed prozone, at frequencies between 6.7% and 38.2%. Negative and faint HRP-2 lines accounted for four (3.8%) and 15 (14.4%) of the 104 prozone results in two RDT brands. For the most affected brand, the proportions of prozone with no visible or faint HRP-2 lines were 10.9% (CI: 5.34-19.08), 1.2% (CI: 0.55-2.10) and 0.1% (CI: 0.06-0.24) among samples with high parasitaemia, all positive samples and all submitted samples respectively. Prozone occurred mainly, but not exclusively, among young children.ConclusionProzone occurs at different frequency and intensity in HRP-2 RDTs and may decrease diagnostic accuracy in the most affected RDTs.

Stillbirths in Tete, Mozambique, were predominantly caused by direct obstetric complications requiring referral among women of low socioeconomic status. Prenatal management of HIV and syphilis limited effects on fetal outcome. Emergency obstetric care and referral systems should be the focus of interventions aimed at stillbirth prevention.

IntroductionPoint-of-care (POC) CD4 testing can improve access to treatment by enabling decentralization and reducing patient loss-to-follow-up. As new POC CD4 technologies become available, their performance should be assessed before widespread deployment. This study reports the findings of five independent evaluations of the PointCare NOW CD4 system.Materials/MethodsEvaluations were conducted in Southern Africa (Mozambique, South Africa) and North America (Canada, USA). 492 blood samples (55 from HIV-negative blood donors and 437 from HIV-infected patients, including 20 children aged between 12 and 59 months) were tested with both the PointCare NOW and reference flow cytometry instruments. Assessment of bias, precision and levels of clinical misclassification for absolute and percent CD4 count was conducted.ResultsPointCare NOW significantly overestimated CD4 absolute counts with a mean relative bias of +35.0%. Bias was greater in samples with CD4 counts below ≤350cells/µl (+51.3%) than in the CD4 >350cells/µl stratum (15.1%). Bias in CD4% had a similar trend with an overall relative mean bias of +25.6% and a larger bias for low CD4 stratum (+40.2%) than the higher CD4 stratum (+5.8%). Relative bias for CD4% in children was −6.8%. In terms of repeatability, PointCare NOW had a coefficient of variation of 11%. Using a threshold of 350cells/µl, only 47% of patients who qualified for antiretroviral therapy with reference CD4 testing, would have been eligible for treatment with PointCare NOW test results. This was 39% using a 200cells/µl threshold. Agreement with infant samples was higher, with 90% qualifying at a 25% eligibility threshold.ConclusionThe performance of the PointCare NOW instrument for absolute and percent CD4 enumeration was inadequate for HIV clinical management in adults. In children, the small sample size was not large enough to draw a conclusion. This study also highlights the importance of independent evaluation of new diagnostic technology platforms before deployment.