Introduction
Fourth
generation (Ag/Ab combination) point of care HIV tests like the FDA-approved
Determine HIV1/2 Ag/Ab Combo test offer the promise of timely detection of
acute HIV infection, relevant in the context of HIV control. However, a
synthesis of their performance has not yet been done. In this meta-analysis we
not only assessed device performance but also evaluated the role of study
quality on diagnostic accuracy.
Methods
Two
independent reviewers searched seven databases, including conferences and
bibliographies, and independently extracted data from 17 studies. Study quality
was assessed with QUADAS-2. Data on sensitivity and specificity (overall,
antigen, and antibody) were pooled using a Bayesian hierarchical random effects
meta-analysis model. Subgroups were analyzed by blood samples (serum/plasma vs.
whole blood) and study designs (case-control vs. cross-sectional).
Results
The
overall specificity of the Determine Combo test was 99.1%, 95% credible
interval (CrI) [97.3–99.8]. The overall pooled sensitivity for the device was
at 88.5%, 95% [80.1–93.4]. When the components of the test were analyzed
separately, the pooled specificities were 99.7%, 95% CrI [96.8–100] and 99.6%,
95% CrI [99.0–99.8], for the antigen and antibody components, respectively.
Pooled sensitivity of the antibody component was 97.3%, 95% CrI [60.7–99.9],
and pooled sensitivity for the antigen component was found to be 12.3%, 95%
(CrI) [1.1–44.2]. No significant differences were found between subgroups by
blood sample or study design. However, it was noted that many studies
restricted their study sample to p24 antigen or RNA positive specimens, which
may have led to underestimation of overall test performance. Detection bias,
selection (spectrum) bias, incorporation bias, and verification bias impaired
study quality.
Conclusions
Although the specificity of all test components was high,
antigenic sensitivity will merit from an improvement. Besides the accuracy of
the device itself, study quality, also impacts the performance of the test.
These factors must be kept in mind in future evaluations of an improved device,
relevant for global scale up and implementation.
Below: Graphical
representation of quality assessment using QUADAS-2. Each domain of
QUADAS-2 is represented by a horizontal bar, divided into the proportion of
studies which scored low, high, or unclear risk of bias.
Full article at: http://goo.gl/YC7eIq
By:
Megan Smallwood, Lawrence Joseph
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational
Health, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
Rohit Vijh, Lawrence Joseph, Nitika Pant Pai
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine,
McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Bénédicte Nauche
Medical Library, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University
Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
Bertrand Lebouché
Chronic Viral Illness Service, Research Institute of the
McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada
Bertrand Lebouché
Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal,
Canada
Nitika Pant Pai
Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada
More at: https://twitter.com/hiv insight
No comments:
Post a Comment