Comparative performance study of three Ebola rapid diagnostic tests in Guinea
Open Access
- 15 September 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Infectious Diseases
- Vol. 20 (1), 1-8
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-020-05339-2
Abstract
Background The 2014/15 Ebola outbreak in West Africa resulted in 11,000 deaths and massive strain on local health systems, and the ongoing outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo has afflicted more than 3000 people. Accurate, rapid Ebola diagnostics suitable for field deployment would enable prompt identification and effective response to future outbreaks, yet remain largely unavailable. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of three novel rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs): an Ebola, an Ebola-Malaria, and a Fever Panel test that includes Ebola, all from a single manufacturer. Methods We evaluated the three RDTs in 109 Ebola-positive and 96 Ebola-negative stored serum samples collected during the outbreak in Guinea in 2014/15, and tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Sensitivity, specificity, and overall percent agreement were calculated for each RDT using RT-PCR as a reference standard, stratified by Ct value ranges. Results All tests performed with high accuracy on samples with low Ct value (high viral load). The Fever Panel test performed with the highest accuracy, with a sensitivity of 89.9% and specificity of 90.6%. The Ebola and Ebola-Malaria tests performed comparably to each other: sensitivity was 77.1 and 78% respectively, and specificity was 91.7% for the Ebola test and 95.8% for the Ebola-Malaria test. Conclusions This study evaluated the accuracy of three novel rapid diagnostic tests for Ebola. The tests may have significant public health relevance, particularly the Fever Panel test, which detects seven pathogens including Ebola. Given limitations to the study resulting from uncertain sample quality, further evaluation is warranted. All tests performed with highest accuracy on samples with low Ct value (high viral load), and the data presented here suggests that these RDTs may be useful for point-of-care diagnosis of cases in the context of an outbreak. Restrictions to their use in non-severe Ebola cases or for longitudinal monitoring, when viral loads are lower, may be appropriate. Highlighting the challenge in developing and evaluating Ebola RDTs, there were concerns regarding sample integrity and reference testing, and there is a need for additional research to validate these assays.Funding Information
- Foundation For Innovative New Diagnostics (PT-AABN1199)
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- Ebola: WHO expresses “very serious concern” about Congo outbreakPublished by BMJ ,2018
- Ebola virus epidemic in war-torn eastern DR CongoThe Lancet, 2018
- Sensitivity and Specificity of Suspected Case Definition Used during West Africa Ebola EpidemicEmerging Infectious Diseases, 2018
- Characteristics and survival of patients with Ebola virus infection, malaria, or both in Sierra Leone: a retrospective cohort studyThe Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2017
- Febrile illness diagnostics and the malaria-industrial complex: a socio-environmental perspectiveBMC Infectious Diseases, 2016
- Evaluation of RealStar Reverse Transcription–Polymerase Chain Reaction Kits for Filovirus Detection in the Laboratory and FieldThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2016
- Modeling in Real Time During the Ebola ResponseMMWR Supplements, 2016
- The role of rapid diagnostics in managing Ebola epidemicsNature, 2015
- The Case for Improved Diagnostic Tools to Control Ebola Virus Disease in West Africa and How to Get TherePLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2015
- Comprehensive Panel of Real-Time TaqMan™ Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for Detection and Absolute Quantification of Filoviruses, Arenaviruses, and New World HantavirusesThe American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2010