IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0012864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance of quantitative point-of-care tests to measure G6PD activity: An individual participant data meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Arkasha Sadhewa
  • Ari Winasti Satyagraha
  • Mohammad Shafiul Alam
  • Wondimagegn Adissu
  • Anup Anvikar
  • Germana Bancone
  • Praveen K Bharti
  • Vinod K Bhutani
  • Santasabuj Das
  • Muzamil Mahdi Abdel Hamid
  • Mohammad Sharif Hossain
  • Nitika Nitika
  • Bernard A Okech
  • Lydia Visita Panggalo
  • Arunansu Talukdar
  • Michael E von Fricken
  • Ronald J Wong
  • Daniel Yilma
  • Ric N Price
  • Kamala Thriemer
  • Benedikt Ley

Abstract

Background: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the main risk factor for severe haemolysis following treatment with 8-aminoquinolines (8AQ). The World Health Organization recommends G6PD testing prior to 8AQ-based hypnozoitocidal treatment. Methods: We undertook an individual level meta-analysis of the performance of commercially available quantitative point-of-care diagnostics (PoCs) compared with reference spectrophotometry. A systematic literature search (PROSPERO: CRD42022330733) identified 595 articles of which 16 (2.7%) fulfilled pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis, plus an additional 4 datasets. In total there were 12,678 paired measurements analyzed, 10,446 (82.4%) by STANDARD G6PD Test (SD Biosensor, RoK, [SDB]), 2,042 (16.1%) by CareStart G6PD Biosensor (AccessBio, USA, [CSA]), 150 (1.2%) by CareStart Biosensor (WellsBio, RoK [CSW]), and 40 (0.3%) by FINDER (Baebies, USA, [FBA]). Findings: The pooled sensitivities of the SDB when measuring G6PD activity 96%) for all blood samples and G6PD activity thresholds. Irrespective of the blood samples and thresholds applied, sensitivity of the CSA did not exceed 62%, although specificity remained high at both 30% and 70% thresholds (>88%). Only one study each for CSW and FBA was included. Sensitivities of the CSW were 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.14) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71-0.89) at the 30% and 70% thresholds, respectively (venous blood samples). Sensitivities of the FBA were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.29-1.00) and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.19-0.99) at the 30% and 70% thresholds (venous blood samples). Specificities of the CSW and FBA were consistently high (>90%) at both thresholds. Accuracy of the SDB was higher in females at the 30% cut-off (OR: 3.49, p=0.002) and lower in malaria patients at the 70% cut-off (OR: 0.59, p = 0.005). Conclusions: The SDB performed better than other PoCs. More evidence was available for the performance of the SDB compared to other PoCs, giving higher confidence in its utility in diagnosing G6PD deficiency. Author summary: Malaria relapse from reactivation of the undetectable dormant liver stage parasite of Plasmodium vivax causes significant morbidity and mortality, and is a barrier to malaria elimination. The only class of drugs able to remove these liver stage parasites (8-aminoquinoline) are contra-indicated in patients with the inborn red blood cell disorder glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. Testing for G6PD deficiency prior to 8-aminoquinoline prescription is recommended by the WHO. In this meta-analysis study, we collected data from published articles and other datasets of studies evaluating the performance of various field-based G6PD activity measurement devices and calculated the pooled performance of each device. The pooled analysis showed that one device, the STANDARD G6PD Test (SD Biosensor, RoK), performed better at measuring G6PD activity compared to the others, although its accuracy may be impacted by the sex and malaria status of the patient. The device was also the most evaluated among the others.

Suggested Citation

  • Arkasha Sadhewa & Ari Winasti Satyagraha & Mohammad Shafiul Alam & Wondimagegn Adissu & Anup Anvikar & Germana Bancone & Praveen K Bharti & Vinod K Bhutani & Santasabuj Das & Muzamil Mahdi Abdel Hamid, 2025. "Performance of quantitative point-of-care tests to measure G6PD activity: An individual participant data meta-analysis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0012864
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0012864
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0012864
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0012864&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0012864?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:pntd00:0012864. 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: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    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.