Field Suitability and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Biocentric Open Real-Time PCR Platform for Dried Blood Spot-Based HIV Viral Load Quantification in Eswatini.

BACKGROUND: To assess the performance and suitability of dried blood spot (DBS) sampling using filter paper to collect blood for viral load (VL) quantification under routine conditions. METHODS: We compared performance of DBS VL quantification using the Biocentric method with plasma VL quantification using Roche and Biocentric as reference methods. Adults (≥18 years) were enrolled at 2 health facilities in Eswatini from October 12, 2016 to March 1, 2017. DBS samples were prepared through finger-prick by a phlebotomist (DBS-1), and through the pipetting of whole venous blood by a phlebotomist (DBS-2) and by a laboratory technologist (DBS-3). We calculated the VL-testing completion rate, correlation, and agreement, as well as diagnostic accuracy estimates at the clinical threshold of 1000 copies/mL. RESULTS: Of 362 patients enrolled, 1066 DBS cards (DBS-1: 347; DBS-2: 359; DBS-3: 360) were tested. Overall, test characteristics were comparable between DBS-sampling methods, irrespective of the reference method. The Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.67 to 0.82 (P < 0.001) for different types of DBS sampling using both reference methods, and the Bland-Altman difference ranged from 0.15 to 0.30 log10 copies/mL. Sensitivity estimates were from 85.3% to 89.2% and specificity estimates were from 94.5% to 98.6%. The positive predictive values were between 87.0% and 96.5% at a prevalence of 30% VL elevations, and negative predictive values were between 93.7% and 95.4%. CONCLUSIONS: DBS VL quantification using the newly configured Biocentric method can be part of contextualized VL-testing strategies, particularly for remote settings and populations with higher viral failure rates.

Field suitability and diagnostic accuracy of the Biocentric® open real-time PCR platform for plasma-based HIV viral load quantification in Swaziland.

BACKGROUND: Viral load (VL) testing is being scaled up in resource-limited settings. However, not all commercially available VL testing methods have been evaluated under field conditions. This study is one of a few to evaluate the Biocentric platform for VL quantification in routine practice in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: Venous blood specimens were obtained from patients eligible for VL testing at two health facilities in Swaziland from October 2016 to March 2017. Samples were centrifuged at two laboratories (LAB-1, LAB-2) to obtain paired plasma specimens for VL quantification with the national reference method and on the Biocentric platform. Agreement (correlation, Bland-Altman) and accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) indicators were calculated at the VL thresholds of 416 (2.62 log10) and 1000 (3.0 log10) copies/mL. Leftover samples from patients with discordant VL results were re-quantified and accuracy indicators recalculated. Logistic regression was used to compare laboratory performance. RESULTS: A total of 364 paired plasma samples (LAB-1: n = 198; LAB-2: n = 166) were successfully tested using both methods. The correlation was high (R = 0.82, p < 0.01), and the Bland-Altman analysis showed a minimal mean difference (- 0.03 log10 copies/mL; 95% CI: -1.15 to 1.08). At the clinical threshold level of 3.0 log10 copies/mL, the sensitivity was 88.6% (95% CI: 78.7 to 94.9) and the specificity was 98.3% (95% CI: 96.1 to 99.4). Sensitivity was higher in LAB-1 (100%; 95% CI: 71.5 to 100) than in LAB-2 (86.4%; 95% CI: 75.0 to 94.0). Most upward (n = 8, 2.2%) and downward (n = 11, 3.0%) misclassifications occurred at the 2.62 log threshold, with LAB-2 having a 16 (95% CI: 2.26 to 113.27; p = 0.006) times higher odds of downward misclassification. After retesting of discordant leftover samples (n = 17), overall sensitivity increased to 93.5% (95% CI: 85.5 to 97.9) and 97.1% (95% CI: 90.1 to 99.7) at the 2.62 and 3.0 thresholds, and specificity increased to 98.6% (95% CI: 96.5 to 99.6) and 99.0% (95% CI: 97.0 to 99.8) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The test characteristics of the Biocentric platform were overall comparable to the national reference method for VL quantification. One laboratory tended to misclassify VL results downwards, likely owing to unmet training needs and lack of previous hands-on practice.