Published in

SAGE Publications, International Journal of STD & AIDS, 4(30), p. 323-328, 2018

DOI: 10.1177/0956462418800872

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Field performance evaluation of dual rapid HIV and syphilis tests in three antenatal care clinics in Zambia

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

This cross-sectional study of 3212 pregnant women assessed the field performance, acceptability, and feasibility of two dual HIV/syphilis rapid diagnostic tests, the Chembio DPP HIV-syphilis Assay and the SD Bioline HIV/syphilis Duo in antenatal clinics. Sensitivity and specificity for HIV and syphilis were calculated compared to the rapid Determine HIV-1/2 with Uni-Gold to confirm positive results for HIV and the Treponema pallidum particle agglutination assay for syphilis. RPR titers ≥1:4 were used to define active syphilis detection. Acceptability and feasibility were assessed using self-reported questionnaires. For Chembio, the HIV sensitivity was 90.6% (95%CI = 87.4, 93.0) and specificity was 97.2% (95%CI = 96.2, 97.8); syphilis sensitivity was 68.6% (95%CI = 61.9, 74.6) and specificity was 98.5% (95%CI = 97.8, 98.9). For SD Bioline, HIV sensitivity was 89.4% (95%CI = 86.1, 92.0) and specificity was 96.3% (95%CI = 95.3, 97.1); syphilis sensitivity was 66.2% (95%CI = 59.4, 72.4) and specificity was 97.2% (95%CI = 96.4, 97.9). Using the reference for active syphilis, syphilis sensitivity was 84.7% (95%CI = 76.1, 90.6) for Chembio and 81.6% (95%CI = 72.7, 88.1) for SD Bioline. Both rapid diagnostic tests were assessed as highly acceptable and feasible. In a field setting, the performance of both rapid diagnostic tests was comparable to other published field evaluations and each was rated highly acceptable and feasible. These findings can be used to guide further research and proposed scale up in antenatal clinic settings.