Author
Listed:
- Nnaemeka C Iriemenam
- Augustine Mpamugo
- Akudo Ikpeazu
- Olumide O Okunoye
- Edewede Onokevbagbe
- Orji O Bassey
- Jelpe Tapdiyel
- Matthias A Alagi
- Chidozie Meribe
- Mukhtar L Ahmed
- Gabriel Ikwulono
- Rose Aguolu
- Gregory Ashefor
- Charles Nzelu
- Akipu Ehoche
- Babatunde Ezra
- Christine Obioha
- Ibrahim Baffa Sule
- Oluwasanmi Adedokun
- Nwando Mba
- Chikwe Ihekweazu
- Manhattan Charurat
- Brianna Lindsay
- Kristen A Stafford
- Dalhatu Ibrahim
- Mahesh Swaminathan
- Ernest L Yufenyuy
- Bharat S Parekh
- Sylvia Adebajo
- Alash’le Abimiku
- McPaul I Okoye
- for the Evaluation Working Group
Abstract
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) diagnosis remains the gateway to HIV care and treatment. However, due to changes in HIV prevalence and testing coverage across different geopolitical zones, it is crucial to evaluate the national HIV testing algorithm as false positivity due to low prevalence could be detrimental to both the client and the service delivery. Therefore, we evaluated the performance of the national HIV rapid testing algorithm using specimens collected from multiple HIV testing services (HTS) sites and compared the results from different HIV prevalence levels across the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria. The evaluation employed a dual approach, retrospective, and prospective. The retrospective evaluation focused on a desktop review of program data (n = 492,880) collated from patients attending routine HTS from six geopolitical zones of Nigeria between January 2017 and December 2019. The prospective component utilized samples (n = 2,895) collected from the field at the HTS and tested using the current national serial HIV rapid testing algorithm. These samples were transported to the National Reference Laboratory (NRL), Abuja, and were re-tested using the national HIV rapid testing algorithm and HIV-1/2 supplementary assays (Geenius to confirm positives and resolve discordance and multiplex assay). The retrospective component of the study revealed that the overall proportion of HIV positives, based on the selected areas, was 5.7% (28,319/492,880) within the study period, and the discordant rate between tests 1 and 2 was 1.1%. The prospective component of the study indicated no significant differences between the test performed at the field using the national HIV rapid testing algorithm and the re-testing performed at the NRL. The comparison between the test performed at the field using the national HIV rapid testing algorithm and Geenius HIV-1/2 supplementary assay showed an agreement rate of 95.2%, while that of the NRL was 99.3%. In addition, the comparison of the field results with HIV multiplex assay indicated a sensitivity of 96.6%, the specificity of 98.2%, PPV of 97.0%, and Kappa Statistic of 0.95, and that of the NRL with HIV multiplex assay was 99.2%, 99.4%, 99.0%, and 0.99, respectively. Results show that the Nigeria national serial HIV rapid testing algorithm performed very well across the target settings. However, the algorithm’s performance in the field was lower than the performance outcomes under a controlled environment in the NRL. There is a need to target testers in the field for routine continuous quality improvement implementation, including refresher trainings as necessary.
Suggested Citation
Nnaemeka C Iriemenam & Augustine Mpamugo & Akudo Ikpeazu & Olumide O Okunoye & Edewede Onokevbagbe & Orji O Bassey & Jelpe Tapdiyel & Matthias A Alagi & Chidozie Meribe & Mukhtar L Ahmed & Gabriel Ikw, 2022.
"Evaluation of the Nigeria national HIV rapid testing algorithm,"
PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-16, November.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pgph00:0001077
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001077
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0001077. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.