Where are the Ebola diagnostics from last time?

Sample-to-result molecular diagnostic platforms and their suitability for infectious disease testing in low- and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostics are an essential, undervalued part of the health-care system. For many diseases, molecular diagnostics are the gold standard, but are not easy to implement in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). Sample-to-result (S2R) platforms combining all procedures in a closed system could offer a solution. In this paper, we investigated their suitability for implementation in LMIC.

AREAS COVERED

A scorecard was used to evaluate different platforms on a range of parameters. Most platforms scored fairly on the platform itself, ease-of-use and test consumables; however, shortcomings were identified in cost, distribution and test panels tailored to LMIC needs. The diagnostic coverage for common infectious diseases was found to have a wider coverage in high-income countries (HIC) than LMIC. A literature study showed that in LMIC, these platforms are mainly used as diagnostic tools or evaluation of diagnostic performance, with a minority assessing the operational characteristics or the clinical utility. In this narrative review, we identified various points for adaptation of S2R platforms to LMIC conditions.

EXPERT OPINION

For S2R platforms to be suitable for implementation in LMIC some modifications by the manufacturers could be considered. Furthermore, strengthening health systems and digitalization are vital; as are smaller, cheaper, faster, and sustainable technologies.

Head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of four Ebola virus disease rapid diagnostic tests versus GeneXpert® in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo outbreaks: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks have emerged in Central and West Africa. EVD diagnosis relies principally on RT-PCR testing with GeneXpert®, which has logistical and cost restrictions at the peripheral level of the health system. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) would offer a valuable alternative at the point-of-care to reduce the turn-around time, if they show good performance characteristics. We evaluated the performance of four EVD RDTs against the reference standard GeneXpert® on stored EVD positive and negative blood samples collected between 2018 and 2021 from outbreaks in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective and observational study in the laboratory on QuickNavi-Ebola™, OraQuick® Ebola Rapid Antigen, Coris® EBOLA Ag K-SeT, and Standard® Q Ebola Zaïre Ag RDTs using left-over archived frozen EDTA whole blood samples. We randomly selected 450 positive and 450 negative samples from the EVD biorepositories in DRC, across a range of GeneXpert® cycle threshold values (Ct-values). RDT results were read by three persons and we considered an RDT result as "positive", when it was flagged as positive by at least two out of the three readers. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity through two independent generalized (logistic) linear mixed models (GLMM).

FINDINGS

476 (53%) of 900 samples had a positive GeneXpert Ebola result when retested. The QuickNavi-Ebola™ showed a sensitivity of 56.8% (95% CI 53.6-60.0) and a specificity of 97.5% (95% CI 96.2-98.4), the OraQuick® Ebola Rapid Antigen test displayed 61.6% (95% CI 57.0-65.9) sensitivity and 98.1% (95% CI 96.2-99.1) specificity, the Coris® EBOLA Ag K-SeT showed 25.0% (95% CI 22.3-27.9) sensitivity and 95.9% (95% CI 94.2-97.1) specificity, and the Standard® Q Ebola Zaïre Ag displayed 21.6% (95% CI 18.1-25.7) sensitivity and 99.1% (95% CI 97.4-99.7) specificity.

INTERPRETATION

None of the RDTs evaluated approached the "desired or acceptable levels" for sensitivity set out in the WHO target product profile, while all of the tests met the "desired level" for specificity. Nevertheless, the QuickNavi-Ebola™ and OraQuick® Ebola Rapid Antigen Test demonstrated the most favorable profiles, and may be used as frontline tests for triage of suspected-cases while waiting for RT-qPCR confirmatory testing.

FUNDING

Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp/EDCTP PEAU-EBOV-RDC project.

Lessons from COVID-19 for improving diagnostic access in future pandemics

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we have witnessed the critical and expanding roles of testing. Despite the development of over a thousand brand of tests - with some close to fulfilling the 4As (accuracy, access, affordability, and actionability via quick time to result) of an ideal diagnostic test - gaps persisted in developing tests to fit public health needs, and in providing equitable access. Here, we review how the use cases for testing evolved over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, with associated engineering challenges (and potential lessons) at each phase for test developers. We summarise lessons learnt from the recent epidemic and propose four areas for future cooperative effort among test developers, government regulators and policy makers, public health experts, and the public: 1) develop new models for public sector funding and research and development; 2) increase testing capacity by investing in adaptable open-platform technologies at every level of the healthcare system; 3) build data connectivity infrastructures to support a connected diagnostic system as a backbone for surveillance; and 4) facilitate the rapid translation of innovation into use through a coordinated framework for regulatory approval and policy development.

Diagnostics of Ebola virus

Ebola is a highly pathogenic virus, which in humans reaches a mortality rate above 50%. Due to a lack of laboratories in territories where Ebola viruses are endemic and the limited number of surveillance programmes, tests for the confirmation of suspected cases of Ebola are often performed in Reference Laboratories. While this provides guarantees regarding the accuracy of results, the shipment of samples to a centralized facility where the diagnostic test can be performed and the time required to achieve the results takes several days, which increases costs and entails delays in the isolation of positive subjects and therapeutic intervention with negative consequences both for patients and the community. Molecular tests have been the most frequently used tool in Ebola diagnosis in recent outbreaks. One of the most commonly used molecular tests is the Real-Star Altona, which targets a conserved area of the L gene. This assay showed different sensitivities depending on the Ebola virus: 471 copies/mL (EBOV) and 2871 copies/ml (SUDAN virus). The Cepheid system also showed good sensitivity (232 copies/mL). The LAMP platform is very promising because, being an isothermal reaction, it does not require high-precision instrumentation and can be considered a Point of Care (PoC) tool. Its analytical sensitivity is 1 copy/reaction. However, since data from real life studies are not yet available, it is premature to give any indications on its feasibility. Moreover, in November 2014, the WHO recommended the development of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) according to ASSURED criteria. Several RDT assays have since been produced, most of which are rapid tests based on the search for antibody anti-Ebola viral proteins with immunochromatographic methods. Several viral antigens are used for this purpose: VP40, NP and GP. These assays show different sensitivities according to the protein used: VP40 57.4-93.1%, GP 53-88.9% and 85% for NP compared to reference molecular assays. From these results, it can be deduced that no RDT reaches the 99% sensitivity recommended by the WHO and therefore any RDT negative results in suspected cases should be confirmed with a molecular test.

Rapid diagnostic tests versus RT-PCR for Ebola virus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the clinical accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of Ebola virus.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE®, Embase® and Web of Science for articles published between 1976 and October 2021 reporting on clinical studies assessing the performance of Ebola virus rapid diagnostic tests compared with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 criteria. To estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of these rapid diagnostic tests, we used a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.

Findings

Our search identified 113 unique studies, of which nine met the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone and they evaluated 12 rapid diagnostic tests. We included eight studies in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the rapid tests were 86% (95% confidence interval, CI: 80-91) and 95% (95% CI: 91-97), respectively. However, pooled sensitivity decreased to 83% (95% CI: 77-88) after removing outliers. Pooled sensitivity increased to 90% (95% CI: 82-94) when analysis was restricted to studies using the RT-PCR from altona Diagnostics as gold standard. Pooled sensitivity increased to 99% (95% CI: 67-100) when the analysis was restricted to studies using whole or capillary blood specimens.

Conclusion

The included rapid diagnostic tests did not detect all the Ebola virus disease cases. While the sensitivity and specificity of these tests are moderate, they are still valuable tools, especially useful for triage and detecting Ebola virus in remote areas.

"No Regrets" Purchasing in a pandemic: making the most of advance purchase agreements

"No regrets" buying - using Advance Purchase Agreements (APAs) - has characterized the response to recent pandemics such as Avian flu, Zika Virus, and now COVID-19. APAs are used to reduce demand uncertainty for product developers and manufacturers; to hedge against R&D and manufacturing risks; and to secure availability of products in the face of spiking demand. Evidence on the use of APAs to buy vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, and personal protective equipment during recent pandemics illustrates how these contracts can achieve their intended objectives for buyers. But, transferring risk from suppliers to buyers - as APAs do - can have consequences, including overbuying and overpaying. Furthermore, the widespread use of APAs by high-income countries has contributed to the striking inequities that have characterized the Swine flu and COVID-19 responses, delaying access to vaccines and other supplies for low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs).We identify seven ways to address some of the risks and disadvantages of APAs, including adoption of a global framework governing how countries enter into APAs and share any resulting supplies; voluntary pooling through joint or coordinated APAs; a concessional-capital-backed facility to allow international buyers and L&MICs to place options on products as an alternative to full purchase commitments; greater collection and sharing of market information to help buyers place smarter APAs; support for a resale market; building in mechanisms for donation from the outset; and transitioning away from APAs as markets mature. While a binding global framework could in theory prevent the competitive buying and hoarding that have characterized country/state responses to pandemics, it will be very challenging to put in place. The other solutions, while less sweeping, can nonetheless mitigate both the inequities associated with the current uncoordinated use of APAs and also some of the risks to individual buyers.Analysis of recent experiences can provide useful lessons on APAs for the next pandemic. It will be important to keep in mind, however, that these contractual instruments work by transferring risk to the buyer, and that buyers must therefore accept the consequences. In the spirit of "no regrets" purchasing, having bought what hindsight suggests was too much is generally preferable to having bought not enough.

Field performance of three Ebola rapid diagnostic tests used during the 2018-20 outbreak in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: a retrospective, multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has confronted 13 outbreaks of Ebola virus disease since 1976. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting viral antigens have been developed to circumvent difficulties encountered with RT-PCR for diagnosis in remote low-resource settings, but there is still uncertainty about their performance characteristics and usability during outbreaks. We aimed to assess the field performance of three antigen detection RDTs compared with the gold-standard Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola assay results.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, multicentre observational study using complete and de-identified databases of five mobile laboratories (managed by the Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale) to assess the performance of three Ebola virus disease RDTs (QuickNavi-Ebola, OraQuick Ebola Rapid Antigen Test, and Coris EBOLA Ag K-SeT rapid test) run on blood samples of patients with suspected Ebola virus disease in direct comparison with the Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola assay reference test during the 2018-20 outbreak in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of each test through generalised linear mixed models against the GeneXpert Ebola assay reference test and corrected for cycle threshold value and random site effects.

FINDINGS

719 (7·9%) of 9157 samples had a positive GeneXpert Ebola assay result. The QuickNavi-Ebola RDT had a sensitivity of 87·4% (95% CI 63·6-96·8) around the mean cycle threshold value and a specificity of 99·6% (99·3-99·8). The OraQuick Ebola Rapid Antigen Test had a sensitivity of 57·4% (95% CI 38·8-75·8) and specificity of 98·3% (97·5-99·0), and the Coris EBOLA Ag K-SeT rapid test had a sensitivity of 38·9% (23·0-63·6) against the GeneXpert Ebola assay reference and specificity of 97·4% (85·3-99·6). The QuickNavi-Ebola RDT showed a robust performance with good sensitivity, particularly with increasing viral loads (ie, low cycle threshold values), and specificity.

INTERPRETATION

The three RDTs evaluated did not achieve the desired sensitivity and specificity of the WHO target product profile. Although the RDTs cannot triage and rule out Ebola virus infection among clinical suspects, they can still help to sort people with suspected Ebola virus disease into high-risk and low-risk groups while waiting for GeneXpert Ebola assay reference testing.

FUNDING

None.

TRANSLATION

For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Evaluation of viral load in patients with Ebola virus disease in Liberia: a retrospective observational study

Background

Viral load in patients with Ebola virus disease affects case fatality rate and is an important parameter used for diagnostic cutoffs, stratification in randomised controlled trials, and epidemiological studies. However, viral load in Ebola virus disease is currently estimated using numerous different assays and protocols that were not developed or validated for this purpose. Here, our aim was to conduct a laboratory-based re-evaluation of the viral loads of a large cohort of Liberian patients with Ebola virus disease and analyse these data in the broader context of the west Africa epidemic.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, whole blood samples from patients at the Eternal Love Winning Africa Ebola treatment unit (Monrovia, Liberia) were re-extracted with an optimised protocol and analysed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) using a novel semi-strand specific assay to measure viral load. To allow for more direct comparisons, the ddPCR viral loads were also back-calculated to cycle threshold (C_t) values. The new viral load data were then compared with the C_t values from the original diagnostic quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) testing to identify differing trends and discrepancies.

Findings

Between Aug 28 and Dec 18, 2014, 727 whole blood samples from 528 individuals were collected. 463 (64%) were first-draw samples and 409 (56%) were from patients positive for Ebola virus (EBOV), species Zaire ebolavirus. Of the 307 first-draw EBOV-positive samples, 127 (41%) were from survivors and 180 (59%) were from non-survivors; 155 (50%) were women, 145 (47%) were men, and seven (2%) were not recorded, and the mean age was 29·3 (SD 15·0) years for women and 31·8 (SD 14·8) years for men. Survivors had significantly lower mean viral loads at presentation than non-survivors in both the reanalysed dataset (5·61 [95% CI 5·34–5·87] vs 7·19 [6·99–7·38] log₁₀ EBOV RNA copies per mL; p<0·0001) and diagnostic dataset (C_t value 28·72 [27·97–29·47] vs 26·26 [25·72–26·81]; p<0·0001). However, the prognostic capacity of viral load increased with the reanalysed dataset (odds ratio [OR] of death 8·06 [95% CI 4·81–13·53], p<0·0001 for viral loads above 6·71 log₁₀ EBOV RNA copies per mL vs OR of death 2·02 [1·27–3·20], p=0·0028 for C_t values below 27·37). Diagnostic qRT-PCR significantly (p<0·0001) underestimated viral load in both survivors and non-survivors (difference in diagnostic C_t value minus laboratory C_t value of 1·79 [95% CI 1·16–2·43] for survivors and 5·15 [4·43–5·87] for non-survivors). Six samples that were reported negative by diagnostic testing were found to be positive upon reanalysis and had high viral loads.

Interpretation

Inaccurate viral load estimation from diagnostic C_t values is probably multifactorial; however, unaddressed PCR inhibition from tissue damage in patients with fulminant Ebola virus disease could largely account for the discrepancies observed in our study. Testing protocols for Ebola virus disease require further standardisation and validation to produce accurate viral load estimates, minimise false negatives, and allow for reliable epidemiological investigation.

Herramientas biotecnológicas en el diagnóstico, prevención y tratamiento frente a pandemias

Las pandemias son consideradas como un problema emergente de salud pública a nivel mundial, las cuales además de caracterizarse por tasas altas de morbilidad y mortalidad, ocasionan conflictos en los aspectos sociales, económicos y políticos. Las herramientas biotecnológicas, por su parte, han ido evolucionando conforme al avance tecnológico-científico, lo que ha permitido optimizar métodos de diagnóstico con alta sensibilidad y especificidad, además de mejorar el desarrollo de productos biológicos para la prevención y terapia de enfermedades. El objetivo de esta revisión es identificar la actualización de las herramientas biotecnológicas en el diagnóstico, tratamiento terapéutico y profiláctico frente a los patógenos causantes de las enfermedades pandémicas a lo largo de la historia, mediante la recopilación de información científica. Con este estudio se logró establecer que las herramientas y productos de origen biotecnológico han constituido un papel fundamental en el control de pandemias a través de la innovación constante que ha permitido alcanzar resultados eficientes tanto en diagnóstico como en el tratamiento.

Ultrasensitive point-of-care immunoassay for secreted glycoprotein detects Ebola infection earlier than PCR

Ebola virus (EBOV) hemorrhagic fever outbreaks have been challenging to deter due to the lack of health care infrastructure in disease-endemic countries and a corresponding inability to diagnose and contain the disease at an early stage. EBOV vaccines and therapies have improved disease outcomes, but the advent of an affordable, easily accessed, mass-produced rapid diagnostic test (RDT) that matches the performance of more resource-intensive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays would be invaluable in containing future outbreaks. Here, we developed and demonstrated the performance of a new ultrasensitive point-of-care immunoassay, the EBOV D4 assay, which targets the secreted glycoprotein of EBOV. The EBOV D4 assay is 1000-fold more sensitive than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved RDTs and detected EBOV infection earlier than PCR in a standard nonhuman primate model. The EBOV D4 assay is suitable for low-resource settings and may facilitate earlier detection, containment, and treatment during outbreaks of the disease.

An open-source molecular diagnostic platform approach for outbreak and epidemic preparedness

Background

Diagnostic development for outbreak pathogens has typically followed a disease-specific reactive rather than proactive response. Given the diversity of outbreak pathogens, particularly those prioritised by the World Health Organization Research and Development Blueprint, a more flexible and proactive approach to epidemic preparedness is needed to expand access to critical molecular diagnostic tests in peripheral and resource-constrained deployment settings.

Objective

New and more sustainable directives are needed to spur the development of high-quality products, particularly for epidemics more often found in low- and middle-income countries. To leverage and de-risk the development process, we present the benefits and challenges of an open-source business model for co-development of molecular diagnostic tests for decentralised settings.

Methods

We identify key outbreak pathogens that are available only for testing in high infrastructure laboratories and compare in-country installed base platforms that could be leveraged for menu expansion. Key strengths and challenges for development are highlighted for both platform and assay developers, with discussion of how to leverage and de-risk the process through an open-source development model.

Results

Depending on the specific partner strengths, options for partnership roles are presented. The proposed open-source business model addresses the particular challenges in the detection of outbreak- and epidemic-prone pathogens in low- and middle-income countries, reduces development and deployment risks to support outbreak response, strengthens diagnostic capacity and creates a viable market for product developers.

Conclusion

We hope this model for a collaborative and open-source approach for molecular diagnostics serves to encourage stakeholders to consider co-development partnerships to improve outbreak preparedness and epidemic/pandemic response.

Ebola virus disease

Ebola virus disease (EVD) is a severe and frequently lethal disease caused by Ebola virus (EBOV). EVD outbreaks typically start from a single case of probable zoonotic transmission, followed by human-to-human transmission via direct contact or contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated fomites. EVD has a high case-fatality rate; it is characterized by fever, gastrointestinal signs and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Diagnosis requires a combination of case definition and laboratory tests, typically real-time reverse transcription PCR to detect viral RNA or rapid diagnostic tests based on immunoassays to detect EBOV antigens. Recent advances in medical countermeasure research resulted in the recent approval of an EBOV-targeted vaccine by European and US regulatory agencies. The results of a randomized clinical trial of investigational therapeutics for EVD demonstrated survival benefits from two monoclonal antibody products targeting the EBOV membrane glycoprotein. New observations emerging from the unprecedented 2013-2016 Western African EVD outbreak (the largest in history) and the ongoing EVD outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have substantially improved the understanding of EVD and viral persistence in survivors of EVD, resulting in new strategies toward prevention of infection and optimization of clinical management, acute illness outcomes and attendance to the clinical care needs of patients.

Clinical Evaluation of QuickNaviTM-Ebola in the 2018 Outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

The recent large outbreaks of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have highlighted the need for rapid diagnostic tests to control this disease. In this study, we clinically evaluated a previously developed immunochromatography-based kit, QuickNavi^TM-Ebola. During the 2018 outbreaks in DRC, 928 blood samples from EVD-suspected cases were tested with QuickNavi^TM-Ebola and the WHO-approved GeneXpert. The sensitivity and specificity of QuickNavi^TM-Ebola, estimated by comparing it to GeneXpert-confirmed cases, were 85% (68/80) and 99.8% (846/848), respectively. These results indicate the practical reliability of QuickNavi^TM-Ebola for point-of-care diagnosis of EVD.