Conducting active screening for human African trypanosomiasis with rapid diagnostic tests: The Guinean experience (2016–2021).

Strategies to detect Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT) cases rely on serological screening of populations exposed to trypanosomes. In Guinea, mass medical screening surveys performed with the Card Agglutination Test for Trypanosomiasis have been progressively replaced by door-to-door approaches using Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) since 2016. However, RDTs availability represents a major concern and medical teams must often adapt, even in the absence of prior RDT performance evaluation. For the last 5 years, the Guinean HAT National Control Program had to combine three different RDTs according to their availability and price: the SD Bioline HAT (not available anymore), the HAT Sero-K-SeT (most expensive), and recently the Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 (limited field evaluation). Here, we assess the performance of these RDTs, alone or in different combinations, through the analysis of both prospective and retrospective data. A parallel assessment showed a higher positivity rate of Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 (6.0%, n = 2,250) as compared to HAT Sero-K-SeT (1.9%), with a combined positive predictive value (PPV) of 20.0%. However, an evaluation of Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 alone revealed a low PPV of 3.9% (n = 6,930) which was surpassed when using Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 in first line and HAT Sero-K-SeT as a secondary test before confirmation, with a combined PPV reaching 44.4%. A retrospective evaluation of all 3 RDTs was then conducted on 189 plasma samples from the HAT-NCP biobank, confirming the higher sensitivity (94.0% [85.6–97.7%]) and lower specificity (83.6% [76.0–89.1%]) of Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 as compared to SD Bioline HAT (Se 64.2% [52.2–74.6%]—Sp 98.4% [94.2–99.5%]) and HAT Sero-K-SeT (Se 88.1% [78.2–93.8%]—Sp 98.4% [94.2–99.5%]). A comparison of Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 and malaria-RDT positivity rates on 479 subjects living in HAT-free malaria-endemic areas further revealed that a significantly higher proportion of subjects positive in Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 were also positive in malaria-RDT, suggesting a possible cross-reaction of Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 with malaria-related biological factors in about 10% of malaria cases. This would explain, at least in part, the limited specificity of Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0. Overall, Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 seems suitable as first line RDT in combination with a second HAT RDT to prevent confirmatory lab overload and loss of suspects during referral for confirmation. A state-of-the-art prospective comparative study is further required for comparing all current and future HAT RDTs to propose an optimal combination of RDTs for door-to-door active screening. Author summary: Strategies to detect Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT) cases rely on serological screening of populations exposed to trypanosomes. In Guinea, mass medical screening surveys performed with the Card Agglutination Test for Trypanosomiasis have been progressively replaced by door-to-door approaches using Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) since 2016. However, RDTs availability represents a major concern and medical teams must often adapt, even in the absence of prior RDT performance evaluation. For the last 5 years, the Guinean HAT National Control Program had to combine three different RDTs according to their availability and price: the SD Bioline HAT (not available anymore), the HAT Sero-K-SeT (most expensive), and recently the Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 (limited field evaluation). Here, we assess the performance of these RDTs, alone or in different combinations, through the analysis of both prospective and retrospective data. Overall, Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 seems suitable as first line RDT in combination with a second HAT RDT to prevent confirmatory lab overload and loss of suspects during referral for confirmation. A state-of-the-art prospective comparative study is further required for comparing all current and future HAT RDTs to propose an optimal combination of RDTs for door-to-door active screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases is the property of Public Library of Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)