RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Point-of-care prognostication in moderate Covid-19: analytical validation and diagnostic accuracy of a soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) rapid test
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.11.25.22282755
DO 10.1101/2022.11.25.22282755
A1 Chandna, Arjun
A1 Mahajan, Raman
A1 Gautam, Priyanka
A1 Mwandigha, Lazaro
A1 Dittrich, Sabine
A1 Kumar, Vikash
A1 Osborn, Jennifer
A1 Kumar, Pragya
A1 Koshiaris, Constantinos
A1 Varghese, George M
A1 Lubell, Yoel
A1 Burza, Sakib
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/11/27/2022.11.25.22282755.abstract
AB The soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has been proposed as a biomarker for the risk stratification of patients presenting with acute infections. However, most studies evaluating suPAR have used platform-based assays, the diagnostic accuracy of which may differ from point-of-care tests capable of informing timely patient triage in settings without established laboratory capacity.Using samples and data collected during a prospective cohort study of 425 patients presenting with moderate Covid-19 to two hospitals in India, we evaluated the analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy of a commercially-available rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for suPAR, using an enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) as the reference standard. Although agreement between the two tests was limited (bias = −2.46 ng/mL [95% CI = −2.65 to −2.27 ng/mL]), diagnostic accuracy to predict progression to supplemental oxygen requirement was comparable, whether suPAR was used alone (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] of RDT = 0.73 [95% CI = 0.68 to 0.79] vs. AUC of ELISA = 0.70 [95% CI = 0.63 to 0.76]; p = 0.12) or as part of a previously published multivariable clinical prediction model (AUC of RDT-based model = 0.74 [95% CI = 0.66 to 0.83] vs. AUC of ELISA-based model = 0.72 [95% CI = 0.64 to 0.81]; p = 0.78).Lack of agreement between the suPAR RDT and ELISA in our cohort warrants further investigation and highlights the importance of assessing candidate point-of-care tests to ensure management algorithms reflect the assay that will ultimately be used to inform patient care. The availability of a quantitative point-of-care test for suPAR opens the door to suPAR-guided risk stratification of patients with Covid-19 and other acute infections in settings with limited laboratory capacity.Competing Interest StatementSabine Dittrich and Jennifer Osborn declare that they are employees of FIND. All other authors declare no competing interests.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/dxq43/ Funding StatementThe PRIORITISE (Prognostication of Oxygen Requirement in Patients with Non-severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection) study was funded by MSF, India, who maintained a sponsor/investigator role for the study. The Wellcome Trust provides core funding to the Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit in Bangkok [220211, 215604/Z/19/Z], which supported the design, monitoring and analysis of the study. The suPAR RDTs were procured by FIND with funding from the Australian Goverment. CK is supported by a Wellcome Trust/Royal Society Sir Henry Dale Fellowship [211182/Z/18/Z].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval was given by the All India Institute for Medical Sciences Patna Ethics Committee; Christian Medical College Ethics Committee; Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee; and Medecins Sans Frontieres Ethical Review Board.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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesDe-identified, individual participant data from this study will be available to researchers whose proposed purpose of use is approved by the data access committees at Medecins Sans Frontieres and the Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit. Inquiries or requests for the data may be sent to data.sharing{at}london.msf.org and datasharing{at}tropmedres.ac. Researchers interested in accessing biobanked samples should contact the corresponding authors who will coordinate with the respective institutions.