Abstract
Background Reflex Cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing in HIV-positive patients is done routinely at 47 laboratories in South Africa on samples with a confirmed CD4 count <100 cells/μl, using the IMMY Lateral Flow Assay (LFA) as the standardized predicate method.
Objective This study aimed to verify the diagnostic performance of newer CrAg LFA assays against the predicate method.
Methods Remnant CD4 samples collected between February and June 2019, with confirmed predicate LFA CrAg results, were retested on settled plasma with the (i) IMMY CrAg semi-quantitative (SQ) LFA; (ii) Bio-Rad RDT CryptoPS SQ; and (iii) Dynamiker CrAg SQ assays, within 24 hours of predicate testing. Sensitivity/ specificity analyses were conducted comparing predicate versus the newer assays, with McNemar’s test’s p-values reported for comparative results (p values <0.05 significant). Positivity grading was noted for the IMMY SQ and Bio-Rad assays.
Results Of the 254 samples tested, 228 had comparative CrAg results across all assays. The predicate method reported 85 CrAg positive (37.2%), compared to between 35.08 and 37.28% for the Bio-Rad, IMMY SQ and Dynamiker assays. The IMMY CrAg SQ grading (+1 to +5) showed 67% of CrAg positive results had a grading ≥3, indicative of higher CrAg concentration (infection severity). False-negative results across all assays were <2%, with sensitivity >95% for all. False-positive results were highest for the Dynamiker LFA (14%) with a specificity of 77% (p=0.001). IMMY SQ and Bio-Rad assays specificities exceeded 90% (p=0.6 and 0.12). Internal quality control showed 100% accuracy for all assays.
Conclusion Performance verification of newer CrAg LFA assays under typical laboratory conditions varied, with best results by IMMY SQ and Bio-Rad. The high burden of HIV and cryptococcal disease in South Africa requires high specificity and - sensitivity (>90%) to prevent unnecessary treatment/hospitalization. The added value of positivity grading for patient management needs confirmation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NA
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics clearance was obtained from the University of the Witwatersrand (M1706108, approved for 5 years from 13/07/2017 to 07/2022).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and the Supporting Information file (S1).