Specificity of serological screening tests and reference laboratory tests to diagnose gambiense human African trypanosomiasis: a prospective clinical performance study.

BACKGROUND: Serological screening tests play a crucial role to diagnose gambiense human African trypanosomiasis (gHAT). Presently, they preselect individuals for microscopic confirmation, but in future "screen and treat" strategies they will identify individuals for treatment. Variability in reported specificities, the development of new rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and the hypothesis that malaria infection may decrease RDT specificity led us to evaluate the specificity of 5 gHAT screening tests. METHODS: During active screening, venous blood samples from 1095 individuals from Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea were tested consecutively with commercial (CATT, HAT Sero-K-SeT, Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0) and prototype (DCN HAT RDT, HAT Sero-K-SeT 2.0) gHAT screening tests and with a malaria RDT. Individuals with ≥ 1 positive gHAT screening test underwent microscopy and further immunological (trypanolysis with T.b. gambiense LiTat 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6; indirect ELISA/T.b. gambiense; T.b. gambiense inhibition ELISA with T.b. gambiense LiTat 1.3 and 1.5 VSG) and molecular reference laboratory tests (PCR TBRN3, 18S and TgsGP; SHERLOCK 18S Tids, 7SL Zoon, and TgsGP; Trypanozoon S2-RT-qPCR 18S2, 177T, GPI-PLC and TgsGP in multiplex; RT-qPCR DT8, DT9 and TgsGP in multiplex). Microscopic trypanosome detection confirmed gHAT, while other individuals were considered gHAT free. Differences in fractions between groups were assessed by Chi square and differences in specificity between 2 tests on the same individuals by McNemar. RESULTS: One gHAT case was diagnosed. Overall test specificities (n = 1094) were: CATT 98.9% (95% CI: 98.1-99.4%); HAT Sero-K-SeT 86.7% (95% CI: 84.5-88.5%); Bioline HAT 2.0 82.1% (95% CI: 79.7-84.2%); DCN HAT RDT 78.2% (95% CI: 75.7-80.6%); and HAT Sero-K-SeT 2.0 78.4% (95% CI: 75.9-80.8%). In malaria positives, gHAT screening tests appeared less specific, but the difference was significant only in Guinea for Abbott Bioline HAT 2.0 (P = 0.03) and HAT Sero-K-Set 2.0 (P = 0.0006). The specificities of immunological and molecular laboratory tests in gHAT seropositives were 98.7-100% (n = 399) and 93.0-100% (n = 302), respectively. Among 44 reference laboratory test positives, only the confirmed gHAT patient and one screening test seropositive combined immunological and molecular reference laboratory test positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Although a minor effect of malaria cannot be excluded, gHAT RDT specificities are far below the 95% minimal specificity stipulated by the WHO target product profile for a simple diagnostic tool to identify individuals eligible for treatment. Unless specificity is improved, an RDT-based "screen and treat" strategy would result in massive overtreatment. In view of their inconsistent results, additional comparative evaluations of the diagnostic performance of reference laboratory tests are indicated for better identifying, among screening test positives, those at increased suspicion for gHAT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered under NCT05466630 in clinicaltrials.gov on July 15 2022.

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.