Diagnostic performance of hepatitis C core antigen assay to identify active infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) core antigen (HCVcAg) assay is an alternative for diagnosing HCV infection in a single step. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay's diagnostic performance (validity and utility) for diagnosing active hepatitis C. PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched until 10 January 2023. The protocol was registered at the prospective international register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022337191). Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay was the test for evaluation, and nucleic acid amplification tests with a cut-off ≤50 IU/mL were the gold standard. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA with the MIDAS module and random-effects models. The bivariate analysis was conducted on 46 studies (18,116 samples). The pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.94-0.97), specificity 0.99 (95% CI = 0.99-1.00), positive likelihood ratio 141.81 (95% CI = 72.39-277.79), and negative likelihood ratio 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03-0.06). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 1.00 (95% CI = 0.34-1.00). For active hepatitis C prevalence values of 0.1%-15%, the probability that a positive test was a true positive was 12%-96%, respectively, indicating that a confirmatory test should be necessary, particularly with a prevalence ≤5%. However, the probability that a negative test was a false negative was close to zero, indicating the absence of HCV infection. The validity (accuracy) of the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay for screening active HCV infection in serum/plasma samples was excellent. Although the HCVcAg assay showed limited diagnostic utility in low prevalence settings (≤1%), it might help diagnose hepatitis C in high prevalence scenarios (≥5%).

Meta-analysis: diagnostic accuracy of hepatitis C core antigen detection during therapy with direct-acting antivirals

BACKGROUND

Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) is monitored by assessing plasma HCV-RNA load. However, detection of HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) may be an alternative.

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the HCVcAg assay to monitor the efficacy of DAAs in HCV-infected patients METHODS: We performed searches in multiple electronic databases until 6 July 2022, of studies evaluating the HCVcAg detection in plasma or serum compared with the HCV-RNA test (gold standard). We calculated pooled measurement at 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, and at end-of-treatment (EOT), as well as sustained virological response (SVR; 12 weeks after EOT).

RESULTS

We selected 16 studies from 2016 to 2022, with 3237 patients and 8958 samples. Overall, the diagnostic performance and clinical utility of the HCVcAg assay were poor at week 2 (sensitivity = 0.40, specificity = 0.96, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) = 9.16, negative likelihood ratio (NLR) = 0.63, and area under the summary receiver operating curve (SROC) = 0.57), fair at week 4 (sensitivity = 0.30, specificity = 0.90, PLR = 3.18, NLR = 0.77, and AUC = 0.79), acceptable at EOT (sensitivity = 0.40, specificity =0.98, PLR = 16.54, NLR = 0.62, and AUC = 0.97) and excellent for SVR (sensitivity = 0.94, specificity = 0.99, PLR = 107.54, NLR = 0.06, and AUC = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The HCVcAg assay may be helpful for monitoring the efficacy of HCV treatment with DAAs in HCV-infected patients at EOT and for documenting SVR, but not at weeks 2 and 4 of treatment due to poor diagnostic performance.