IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0003195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Continuous quality evaluation of the Asanté rapid test for recent infection for robust kit lot quality verification

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Zheng
  • Mervi Detorio
  • Trudy Dobbs
  • Vedapuri Shanmugam
  • Xiaojuan Tan
  • Jeni Vuong
  • Robert A Domaoal
  • Kemba Lee
  • LaTasha Williams
  • Keisha Jackson
  • Bharat Parekh
  • Ernest L Yufenyuy

Abstract

The Sedia Biosciences Asanté rapid test for recent infection (RTRI) can identify HIV infections and characterize HIV-1 as recent or long-term infection via the positive verification (V) line and long-term line (LT) line, respectively. Tracking with Recency Assays to Control the Epidemic (TRACE) program uses RTRI assays. Successful implementation of TRACE requires high-quality test performance. The goal of this study is to evaluate the additional quality practices established for new kit lots prior to field use. Asanté lot quality control data from the manufacturer is reviewed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention International Laboratory Branch (CDC-ILB) in the Division of Global HIV and TB using. If a lot passes manufacturer quality control and CDC-ILB review, test kits are sent to CDC-ILB for further evaluation. Evaluation by CDC includes inter-rater reliability and linear regressions comparing the V and LT lines against reference data as well as V and LT line data between testers. A Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to assess bias and systematic error. Overall, CDC-ILB passed 29 (91%) out of 32 Sedia Biosciences Asanté kit lots that initially passed manufacturing quality control from July 2017 to May 2020. Regression analyses demonstrate that test kits are performing as expected with consistent R2≥0.92 for both V and LT lines. On average, inter-rater reliability kappa was 0.9, indicating a strong level of agreement. Bland-Altman analyses demonstrate high agreement with little to no systematic error and bias. Ongoing evaluation of new RTRI kit lots is important to ensure high quality test performance. Rejecting 9% of kit lots highlight the importance of continuing to work with manufacturers to ensure consistent kit production and quality assurance (QA) activities. Investing in effective QA measures, conducting both pre- and post-market performance data reviews, could help improve RTRI accuracy and outcomes in similar testing programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Zheng & Mervi Detorio & Trudy Dobbs & Vedapuri Shanmugam & Xiaojuan Tan & Jeni Vuong & Robert A Domaoal & Kemba Lee & LaTasha Williams & Keisha Jackson & Bharat Parekh & Ernest L Yufenyuy, 2024. "Continuous quality evaluation of the Asanté rapid test for recent infection for robust kit lot quality verification," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0003195
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0003195
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0003195&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003195?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pgph00:0003195. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.