Lay testing cadres and point-of-care diagnostic tests for HIV and other diseases: An essential combination in health service delivery

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Rapid Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load XC, Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load, & m-PIMA HIV-1/2 Viral Load in South African Clinics

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the analytic performance of 3 rapid HIV viral load assays: the novel Xpert HIV-1 VL XC (Xpert XC), Xpert HIV-1 VL (Xpert VL), and m-PIMA HIV-1/2 VL (m-PIMA).

SETTING

Two South African clinics.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Site-laboratory technicians and nurses used the Xpert XC, Xpert VL, and m-PIMA to test plasma samples from people with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy. We compared results with the Roche cobas HIV-1 reference assay. We determined accuracy to detect viraemia at the World Health Organization (WHO) failure threshold of 1000 copies/mL on all 3 assays, and 50 and 200 copies/mL on the Xpert assays. We assessed the agreement using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

We enrolled 140 participants (98 [70%] women, median age 37 years), who provided 189 paired samples at one or more timepoints. We tested 174 samples with the Xpert XC, 188 with the Xpert VL, and 128 with the m-PIMA. At 1000 copies/mL, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence intervals) were 97% (82 to 100) and 98% (93 to 99) (Xpert XC), 100% (87 to 100) and 96% (91 to 98) (Xpert VL), and 92% (72 to 99) and 99% (93 to 100) (m-PIMA) respectively. At 50 copies/mL, sensitivity and specificity were 93% (81 to 98) and 96% (91 to 99) (Xpert XC), and 95% (84 to 99) and 95% (90 to 98) (Xpert VL) respectively. Mean bias was -0.10 (-0.54 to 0.34) log10 copies/mL (Xpert XC), 0.07 (-0.37 to 0.52) log10 copies/mL (Xpert VL), and -0.26 (-0.83 to 0.31) log10 copies/mL (m-PIMA).

CONCLUSIONS

In these South African clinics, the accuracy of all 3 assays was clinically acceptable to detect viraemia at the WHO failure threshold, whereas both Xpert assays were also accurate at detecting low-level viraemia.

Monitored Implementation of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Screening at Taxi Ranks in Johannesburg, South Africa

Digital tools can support community-based decentralized testing initiatives to broaden access to COVID-19 diagnosis, especially in high-transmission settings. This operational study investigated the use of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for COVID-19 combined with an end-to-end digital health solution, in three taxi ranks in Johannesburg, South Africa. Members of the public were eligible if they were aged ≥18 years, could read, and had a cellphone. Over 15,000 participants, enrolled between June and September 2021, were screened for COVID-19 risk factors. A digital risk questionnaire identified 2061 (13%) participants as moderate risk and 2987 (19%) as high risk, based on symptoms and/or recent exposure to a known case. Of this group referred for testing, 3997 (79%) received Ag-RDTs, with positivity rates of 5.1% in the "high-risk" group and 0.8% in the "moderate-risk" group. A subset of 569 randomly selected participants received additional PCR testing. Sensitivity of the Ag-RDT in this setting was 40% (95% CI: 30.3%, 50.3%); most false negatives had high cycle threshold values (>25), hence low viral loads. Over 80% of participants who tested positive completed a 2-week phone-based follow-up questionnaire. Overall, the digital tool combined with Ag-RDTs enhanced community-based decentralized COVID-19 testing service delivery, reporting and follow-up.