Repeatability and reproducibility of a handheld quantitative G6PD diagnostic.
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 2022
02 2022
Historique:
received:
20
07
2021
accepted:
17
01
2022
entrez:
17
2
2022
pubmed:
18
2
2022
medline:
26
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The introduction of novel short course treatment regimens for the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax requires reliable point-of-care diagnosis that can identify glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient individuals. While deficient males can be identified using a qualitative diagnostic test, the genetic make-up of females requires a quantitative measurement. SD Biosensor (Republic of Korea) has developed a handheld quantitative G6PD diagnostic (STANDARD G6PD test), that has approximately 90% accuracy in field studies for identifying individuals with intermediate or severe deficiency. The device can only be considered for routine care if precision of the assay is high. Commercial lyophilised controls (ACS Analytics, USA) with high, intermediate, and low G6PD activities were assessed 20 times on 10 Biosensor devices and compared to spectrophotometry (Pointe Scientific, USA). Each device was then dispatched to one of 10 different laboratories with a standard set of the controls. Each control was tested 40 times at each laboratory by a single user and compared to spectrophotometry results. When tested at one site, the mean coefficient of variation (CV) was 0.111, 0.172 and 0.260 for high, intermediate, and low controls across all devices respectively; combined G6PD Biosensor readings correlated well with spectrophotometry (rs = 0.859, p<0.001). When tested in different laboratories, correlation was lower (rs = 0.604, p<0.001) and G6PD activity determined by Biosensor for the low and intermediate controls overlapped. The use of lyophilised human blood samples rather than fresh blood may have affected these findings. Biosensor G6PD readings between sites did not differ significantly (p = 0.436), whereas spectrophotometry readings differed markedly between sites (p<0.001). Repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the Biosensor were good; though the device did not reliably discriminate between intermediate and low G6PD activities of the lyophilized specimens. Clinical studies are now required to assess the devices performance in practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The introduction of novel short course treatment regimens for the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax requires reliable point-of-care diagnosis that can identify glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient individuals. While deficient males can be identified using a qualitative diagnostic test, the genetic make-up of females requires a quantitative measurement. SD Biosensor (Republic of Korea) has developed a handheld quantitative G6PD diagnostic (STANDARD G6PD test), that has approximately 90% accuracy in field studies for identifying individuals with intermediate or severe deficiency. The device can only be considered for routine care if precision of the assay is high.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Commercial lyophilised controls (ACS Analytics, USA) with high, intermediate, and low G6PD activities were assessed 20 times on 10 Biosensor devices and compared to spectrophotometry (Pointe Scientific, USA). Each device was then dispatched to one of 10 different laboratories with a standard set of the controls. Each control was tested 40 times at each laboratory by a single user and compared to spectrophotometry results. When tested at one site, the mean coefficient of variation (CV) was 0.111, 0.172 and 0.260 for high, intermediate, and low controls across all devices respectively; combined G6PD Biosensor readings correlated well with spectrophotometry (rs = 0.859, p<0.001). When tested in different laboratories, correlation was lower (rs = 0.604, p<0.001) and G6PD activity determined by Biosensor for the low and intermediate controls overlapped. The use of lyophilised human blood samples rather than fresh blood may have affected these findings. Biosensor G6PD readings between sites did not differ significantly (p = 0.436), whereas spectrophotometry readings differed markedly between sites (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Repeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the Biosensor were good; though the device did not reliably discriminate between intermediate and low G6PD activities of the lyophilized specimens. Clinical studies are now required to assess the devices performance in practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35176015
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010174
pii: PNTD-D-21-01086
pmc: PMC8853557
doi:
Substances chimiques
Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase
EC 1.1.1.49
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0010174Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 200909/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : TL1 TR001864
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Travel Med. 2019 Jun 1;26(4):
pubmed: 30941413
Malar J. 2018 Mar 2;17(1):101
pubmed: 29499733
Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2009 May-Jun;42(3):267-78
pubmed: 19233695
Lancet. 2019 Sep 14;394(10202):929-938
pubmed: 31327563
Malar J. 2021 Jun 13;20(1):266
pubmed: 34120622
Drugs. 2018 Sep;78(14):1517-1523
pubmed: 30229442
Bull World Health Organ. 1989;67(6):601-11
pubmed: 2633878
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Aug 12;15(8):e0009649
pubmed: 34383774
Blood. 2020 Sep 10;136(11):1225-1240
pubmed: 32702756
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Mar 06;9(3):e0003602
pubmed: 25746733
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 2;13(11):e0206331
pubmed: 30388146
PLoS Med. 2020 May 14;17(5):e1003084
pubmed: 32407380
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1):213-221
pubmed: 30350771
Malar J. 2013 Nov 04;12:391
pubmed: 24188096
Malar J. 2018 Jun 20;17(1):241
pubmed: 29925430
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 20;16(9):e0257560
pubmed: 34543346
PLoS Med. 2012;9(11):e1001339
pubmed: 23152723
Malar J. 2015 Sep 29;14:377
pubmed: 26416229
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Apr 19;12(4):e0006230
pubmed: 29672516
PLoS Med. 2019 Dec 13;16(12):e1002992
pubmed: 31834890
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Dec 4;11(1):855
pubmed: 30514365
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Jan;102(1):156-158
pubmed: 31701865