Economic and feasibility comparison of the dRIT and DFA for decentralized rabies diagnosis in resource-limited settings: The use of Nigerian dog meat markets as a case study.
Animals
Antibodies, Viral
/ immunology
Costs and Cost Analysis
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
/ methods
Dog Diseases
/ virology
Dogs
Fluorescent Antibody Technique, Direct
/ economics
Humans
Immunohistochemistry
/ economics
Meat
/ virology
Nigeria
/ epidemiology
Rabies
/ epidemiology
Rabies virus
/ isolation & purification
Sensitivity and Specificity
Journal
PLoS neglected tropical diseases
ISSN: 1935-2735
Titre abrégé: PLoS Negl Trop Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
20
02
2019
accepted:
26
01
2020
revised:
11
03
2020
pubmed:
29
2
2020
medline:
28
4
2020
entrez:
29
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rabies lyssavirus (RABV) is the aetiologic agent of rabies, a disease that is severely underreported in Nigeria as well as elsewhere in Africa and Asia. Despite the role that rabies diagnosis plays towards elucidating the true burden of the disease, Nigeria-a country of 180 million inhabitants-has a limited number of diagnostic facilities. In this study, we sought to investigate two of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)-recommended diagnostic assays for rabies-viz; the direct fluorescent antibody test (DFA) and the direct rapid immunohistochemical test (dRIT) in terms of their relative suitability in resource-limited settings. Our primary considerations were (1) the financial feasibility for implementation and (2) the diagnostic efficacy. As a case study, we used suspect rabies samples from dog meat markets in Nigeria. By developing a simple simulation framework, we suggested that the assay with the lowest cost to implement and routinely use was the dRIT assay. The costs associated with the dRIT were lower in all simulated scenarios, irrespective of the number of samples tested per year. In addition to the cost analysis, the diagnostic efficacies of the two assays were evaluated. To do this, a cohort of DFA-positive and -negative samples collected from dog meat markets in Nigeria were initially diagnosed using the DFA in Nigeria and subsequently sent to South Africa for diagnostic confirmation. In South Africa, all the specimens were re-tested with the DFA, the dRIT and a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). In our investigation, discrepancies were observed between the three diagnostic assays; with the incongruent results being resolved by means of confirmatory testing using the heminested reverse transcription polymerase reaction and sequencing to confirm that they were not contamination. The data obtained from this study suggested that the dRIT was not only an effective diagnostic assay that could be used to routinely diagnose rabies, but that the assay was also the most cost-effective option among all of the OIE recommended methods. In addition, the results of our investigation confirmed that some of the dogs slaughtered in dog markets were rabies-positive and that the markets posed a potential public health threat. Lastly, our data showed that the DFA, although regarded as the gold standard test for rabies, has some limitations-particularly at low antigen levels. Based on the results reported here and the current challenges faced in Nigeria, we believe that the dRIT assay would be the most suitable laboratory test for decentralized or confirmatory rabies diagnosis in Nigeria, given its relative speed, accuracy, cost and ease of use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Rabies lyssavirus (RABV) is the aetiologic agent of rabies, a disease that is severely underreported in Nigeria as well as elsewhere in Africa and Asia. Despite the role that rabies diagnosis plays towards elucidating the true burden of the disease, Nigeria-a country of 180 million inhabitants-has a limited number of diagnostic facilities. In this study, we sought to investigate two of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)-recommended diagnostic assays for rabies-viz; the direct fluorescent antibody test (DFA) and the direct rapid immunohistochemical test (dRIT) in terms of their relative suitability in resource-limited settings. Our primary considerations were (1) the financial feasibility for implementation and (2) the diagnostic efficacy. As a case study, we used suspect rabies samples from dog meat markets in Nigeria.
METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
By developing a simple simulation framework, we suggested that the assay with the lowest cost to implement and routinely use was the dRIT assay. The costs associated with the dRIT were lower in all simulated scenarios, irrespective of the number of samples tested per year. In addition to the cost analysis, the diagnostic efficacies of the two assays were evaluated. To do this, a cohort of DFA-positive and -negative samples collected from dog meat markets in Nigeria were initially diagnosed using the DFA in Nigeria and subsequently sent to South Africa for diagnostic confirmation. In South Africa, all the specimens were re-tested with the DFA, the dRIT and a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). In our investigation, discrepancies were observed between the three diagnostic assays; with the incongruent results being resolved by means of confirmatory testing using the heminested reverse transcription polymerase reaction and sequencing to confirm that they were not contamination.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE
The data obtained from this study suggested that the dRIT was not only an effective diagnostic assay that could be used to routinely diagnose rabies, but that the assay was also the most cost-effective option among all of the OIE recommended methods. In addition, the results of our investigation confirmed that some of the dogs slaughtered in dog markets were rabies-positive and that the markets posed a potential public health threat. Lastly, our data showed that the DFA, although regarded as the gold standard test for rabies, has some limitations-particularly at low antigen levels. Based on the results reported here and the current challenges faced in Nigeria, we believe that the dRIT assay would be the most suitable laboratory test for decentralized or confirmatory rabies diagnosis in Nigeria, given its relative speed, accuracy, cost and ease of use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32109246
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008088
pii: PNTD-D-19-00264
pmc: PMC7065817
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0008088Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interest exist
Références
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2008 Mar 26;2(3):e206
pubmed: 18365035
Arch Virol. 2019 Apr;164(4):1233-1244
pubmed: 30663023
US Army Med Dep J. 2009 Jan-Mar;:42-5
pubmed: 20088045
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Dec;12(12):1913-8
pubmed: 17326944
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2017 Apr 3;11(4):e0005427
pubmed: 28369139
Glob J Health Sci. 2013 Oct 27;6(1):107-14
pubmed: 24373270
Glob J Health Sci. 2013 Nov 03;6(1):142-53
pubmed: 24373274
Zhonghua Shi Yan He Lin Chuang Bing Du Xue Za Zhi. 2008 Jun;22(3):168-70
pubmed: 19031692
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Sep 25;8(9):e3189
pubmed: 25254652
Emerg Infect Dis. 2006 Feb;12(2):310-3
pubmed: 16494761
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Nov;35(11):2762-6
pubmed: 9350729
J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Nov;48(11):3949-55
pubmed: 20810772
Niger Postgrad Med J. 2006 Jun;13(2):128-34
pubmed: 16794650
J S Afr Vet Assoc. 2017 Mar 24;88(0):e1-e9
pubmed: 28397511
J Virol Methods. 2013 Jul;191(1):88-94
pubmed: 23578701
ISRN Vet Sci. 2013 Dec 12;2013:468043
pubmed: 24416598
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010 Nov 30;4(11):e839
pubmed: 21152052
Animals (Basel). 2011 Sep 26;1(4):326-42
pubmed: 26486619
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Apr 16;9(4):e0003709
pubmed: 25881058
Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2008 Jan;11(1):3-12
pubmed: 19966972
Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Aug;24(8):1596-9
pubmed: 17488738
Antiviral Res. 2013 Jun;98(3):357-64
pubmed: 23603498
Virol Sin. 2012 Oct;27(5):299-302
pubmed: 23055005
Vet Sci. 2018 Feb 28;5(1):
pubmed: 29495649
Mol Biol Evol. 2016 Jul;33(7):1870-4
pubmed: 27004904