Assessing diagnostic accuracy of Ov16 rapid diagnostic tests for onchocerciasis using Bayesian latent class models
Norman, J.; Bassabi-Alladjie, N.-M.; Boko-Collins, P. M.; de Souza, D. K.; Gass, K.; Hamill, L.; Langa, J.; Moore, C.; Nala, R.; Sullivan, S. M.; Giorgi, E.
Show abstract
BackgroundOnchocerciasis elimination programs increasingly rely on tests that detect antibodies to the Ov16 antigen, yet the performance of currently available rapid tests remains uncertain. The existing Ov16 rapid test shows inconsistent sensitivity when used on whole blood and does not consistently meet international thresholds for mapping or stopping mass drug administration. Two new Ov16 rapid tests have recently been developed, but their accuracy has not been fully evaluated using methods that account for the lack of a true reference standard. Methodology/Principal FindingsWe pooled data from three field studies conducted in Mozambique, Ghana, and Benin in 2023 to evaluate two novel Ov16 rapid tests alongside the existing test. A Bayesian latent class model was used to estimate sensitivity and specificity without assuming that any test was perfect. Across all model specifications, the GADx rapid test showed the highest sensitivity, consistently exceeding the 89% threshold recommended for decisions to stop mass drug administration (posterior medians: 92.0%-92.8%). The SD Bioline test met this threshold in most models but showed lower sensitivity in one model (83.2%). The DDTD test demonstrated lower sensitivity overall (86.6%-88.4%). Specificity estimates were uniformly high for all tests but remained below the recommended threshold of 99.8% (highest median: 98.8%). Alternative definitions of a positive result for the multi-antigen DDTD test did not materially change its performance. Conclusions/SignificanceThe two novel rapid tests showed improved sensitivity relative to the existing test, particularly the GADx test. However, none of the tests achieved the specificity level needed to support decisions to stop mass drug administration on their own. These findings highlight the need for improved diagnostic tools or confirmatory testing strategies as countries work toward onchocerciasis elimination. Author SummaryIn this study, we evaluated three rapid tests used to detect exposure to the parasite that causes river blindness. These tests are important tools for country programs that are trying to eliminate the disease and decide when to stop giving communities preventive treatment. One challenge is that there is no perfect test to compare new tools against. To address this, we combined data from studies in Mozambique, Ghana, and Benin and used a statistical approach that estimates test accuracy without relying on a single reference test. We found that one of the new tests, made by GADx, identified people with exposure more accurately than the others. The existing test and the DDTD test showed lower accuracy. All three tests correctly identified most people who were not exposed, but not at the very high level needed for programs to confidently stop treatment. Our results show that while new rapid tests are improving, more work is needed to create tools that are accurate enough for elimination decisions. This information can help guide public health programs as they work toward ending river blindness.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of a rapid lateral flow assay for the detection of taeniosis and cysticercosis at district hospital level in Tanzania: A prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study 96%
- Usability, acceptability and cost of the SD BIOLINE Ov16 rapid diagnostic test for onchocerciasis surveillance in endemic communities in the middle belt of Ghana 95%
- Field evaluation of Standard Q Filariasis Antigen Test for Lymphatic Filariasis (LF) during a pre-transmission assessment survey in Sierra Leone, 2022 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multiple Drug Resistance in the canine hookworm Ancylostoma caninum: an Emerging Threat 93%
- Measuring elimination of gambiense human African trypanosomiasis: A comparison of deceptively different metrics 93%
- Individual and spatial heterogeneity of praziquantel efficacy against Schistosoma mansoni within the context of repeated mass drug administration 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A comprehensive evaluation of an artificial intelligence based digital pathology to monitor large-scale deworming programs against soil-transmitted helminths: a study protocol 95%
- Integrating post-validation surveillance of lymphatic filariasis with the WHO STEPwise approach to non-communicable disease risk factor surveillance in Niue, a study protocol 94%
- Performance comparison of the Maxim and Sedia Limiting Antigen Avidity assays for incidence surveillance 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Current gaps in survey design and analysis for molecular xenomonitoring of vector-borne neglected tropical diseases: a systematic review 93%
- Machine learning for improved dengue diagnosis, Puerto Rico 92%
- Use of routine health data to monitor malaria intervention effectiveness: a scoping review. 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analytical sensitivity analysis and clinical impact modeling of Rapigen rapid diagnostics tests for malaria 94%
- Varying Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test Accuracy by Regional Transmission Level and Demographics in Tanzania 94%
- The impact of emerging Plasmodium knowlesi on accurate diagnosis by light microscopy: a systematic review and modelling analysis 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.