Performance of Rapid Tests For Detection of HBsAg and Anti-HBsAb
Performance of Rapid Tests For Detection of HBsAg and Anti-HBsAb
Performance of Rapid Tests For Detection of HBsAg and Anti-HBsAb
Background & Aims: The systematic use of rapid tests performed inactive HBsAg carriers. The anti-HBsAb Quick Profile™ test had
at points-of-care may facilitate hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening excellent specificity (97.8%) and PPV (97.8%) albeit low sensitivity
and substantially increase HBV infection awareness. The aim of (58.3%), thus failing to establish non-inferiority.
this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of such tests for Conclusions: All three HBsAg rapid tests could be considered
HBsAg and anti-HBsAb detection among individuals visiting a ideal for HBV screening in low HBV-prevalent countries, given
variety of healthcare centers located in a low HBV-prevalent area. the ease of use, rapidity, and high classification probabilities.
Methods: Three rapid tests for hepatitis B surface antigen The anti-HBsAb Quick Profile™ could be considered reliable only
(HBsAg) detection (VIKIAÒ, Determine™ and Quick Profile™) for positive tests.
and one test for anti-hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBsAb) Ó 2012 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published
detection (Quick Profile™) were evaluated in comparison to by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
ELISA serology. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive and neg-
ative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) and area
under the ROC curve were used to estimate test performance. Introduction
Non-inferiority criteria of the joint Se, Sp were set at 0.80, 0.95.
Results: Among the 3956 subjects screened, 85 (2.1%) were According to recent estimations, France has a low prevalence of
HBsAg-positive and 2225 (56.5%) had a protective anti-HBsAb chronic hepatitis B virus infection (CHB) as roughly 0.65% of those
titer. Test Se and Sp (lower bound of 97.5% CI) were as follows: cases with health insurance are estimated to be infected [1,2].
96.5% (89.0%), 99.9% (99.8%) for VikiaÒ; 93.6% (80.7%), 100.0% Although the social security system provides a wide range of ser-
(99.8%) for Determine™; and 90.5% (80.8%), 99.7% (99.5%) for vices targeted towards prevention and effective care, more than
Quick Profile™; with all three tests achieving minimal non- 280,000 people continue to live with chronic hepatitis B virus
inferiority criteria. False negatives were typically observed in infection, of whom over 55% are unaware of their infection-status
[1]. CHB diagnosis is therefore severely delayed in this group and
often occurs when severe clinical repercussions, such as advanced
Keywords: Hepatitis B; Rapid tests; Screening.
stages of cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma, are already
Received 27 September 2012; received in revised form 31 October 2012; accepted 6 present. As a result, it is estimated that over 1300 deaths per year
November 2012; available online 23 November 2012 are directly attributable to hepatitis B virus (HBV) in France [3].
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Service de Maladies Infectieuses, Hôpital St
Unawareness of HBV infection status could be explained by
Antoine, 184, rue du faubourg St Antoine, 75012 Paris, France. Tel.: +33 6 24 28 68
both the lack of knowledge among those at risk (i.e., subjects born
73; fax: +33 01 49 28 21 49.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Bottero). in geographic regions with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)
These authors contributed equally to this work. prevalence >2%, household contacts, sexual partners of subjects
Abbreviations: CHB, chronic hepatitis B; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HBsAg, hepatitis B with CHB or intravenous drug users [4]) and the lack of recogni-
surface antigen; Anti-HBsAb, anti-HBs antibody; Anti-HBsAc, anti-hepatitis B core tion concerning the seriousness of its public health impact among
antibody; ELISA, enzyme-linked immuno-assay; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity;
general practitioners. Furthermore, the absence of national guide-
PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; LR+, positive lik-
elihood ratio; LR, negative likelihood ratio; AUROCs, area under the receiving lines related to screening practices leads to further confusion,
operator curve; FPF, false positive fraction; TPF, true positive fraction. with highly variable screening protocols between healthcare
Fig. 1. Picture of the 3 rapid tests. (This figure appears in color on the web.)
Patients and methods
Study participants number of 5 clinic research associates). Only results that the two readers agreed
upon were included. However, if one reading was indeterminate while the other
was definitive, the definitive reading was taken as the final result.
From September 2010 to August 2011, 4000 subjects were recruited from ten,
Paris-based healthcare centers whose aims involved screening, prevention and/
or vaccination of diverse populations. Inclusion criteria for the present study were Statistical analysis
as follows: agreement to be screened for HBV, 18 years of age or older, and avail-
ability for a subsequent follow-up questionnaire via telephone. Participants with- Rapid tests were compared to ELISA, which served as the gold standard. Sensitiv-
out health coverage were also included [5]. All participants provided written ity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV,
informed consent and the protocol was approved by the Hôtel-Dieu Hospital Eth- respectively), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+ and LR, respectively)
ics Committee (Paris, France) in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. were estimated. Area under the ROC curves (AUROCs) were also calculated and
compared between rapid tests using a test of equality of ROC areas. Inter-rater
Rapid test comparisons and gold standard agreement was determined using the Kappa statistic, without taking into account
indeterminate results.
Using a previously described method [7], we powered the study in order to
Approximately 10 ml of whole blood was collected into a tube without any addi-
test desirable levels of the pair [false positive fraction (FPF), true positive fraction
tive from each participant. Before the blood had yet to coagulate, a few drops
(TPF)] at (0.02, 0.95). Non-inferiority criteria were then selected with minimally
were immediately removed from the sample and used for each rapid test accord-
acceptable (FPF, TPF) at (0.05, 0.80), reflecting the importance of decreasing the
ing to manufacturers’ instructions. Anticoagulant was not added to the sample
number of false positives while increasing the number of cases identified [8].
because only serum was required for subsequent study procedures. Three tests
We aimed at testing a one-sided, null hypothesis assuming a joint power of
for HBsAg detection (VIKIAÒ, Biomerieux, Marcy-l’Étoile, France; Determine™,
0.90 and type I error (a) of 0.05. After accounting for an estimated prevalence
Inverness Biomedical Innovations, Köln, Germany; Quick Profile™, Lumiquick,
of 2.0% from previous population-based studies within Paris [1] and correcting
Santa Clara, CA, USA) and one test for anti-HBs antibody (anti-HBsAb) detection
calculations on a 90% probability that the sample obtained will be at least as large
(Quick Profile™, Lumiquick) were evaluated (Fig 1). These qualitative tests are
as required, the minimum number of participants needed was 3384 and 489 (for
based on the principle of immunochromatography, in which membrane chroma-
enough diseased and non-diseased subjects, respectively). As both FPF and TPF
tography is used to determine the presence of polyclonal antibodies specific for
are considered,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the joint 95% confidence region is given from the 97.5%
HBsAg or anti-HBs antibody within a test region. In order to determine partici-
( 1 a ¼ 95%) univariate intervals. For ease in clinical interpretation, we
pants’ ‘‘true’’ HBV status, serum was processed from whole blood and tested using
report the sensitivity (TPF) and specificity (1-FPF). Statistical analyses were per-
a commercially-available enzyme-linked immuno-assay (ELISA) (MONOLISA
formed using STATA (v11.2, College Station, TX, USA) statistical software.
AgHBS Ultra, anti-HBs plus, anti-hepatitis B core antibody-anti-HBc-plus, BIO-
RAD, Hercules, USA). Only results of this testing were relayed to participants
and their general practitioner. All participants found to have active HBV infection
were asked if they would like to schedule a medical visit, during which a com- Results
plete evaluation would be performed at a specialized clinic and therapy options
would be discussed, if necessary. Additionally, all HBsAg-positive specimens
Study participants
had HBsAg quantification done using the ARCHITECT HBsAg enzyme-linked
immunoassay (Abbott Laboratories, Rungis, France), and HBV DNA quantification,
using the commercial quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay COBAS Taq- At the end of the study, a total of 3956 subjects had at least one HBV
man 48 HBV (Roche Diagnostic Systems, Meylan, France). For one specimen, rapid test with ELISA results and were hence included in the anal-
HBV sequencing was performed on the pol/S region, as previously described [6]. ysis. As discordant inter-rater results were excluded and
The sequence was analyzed with the ‘‘HBV tool’’ accessible online at http://
www.hiv-grade.de/cms/grade/hbv-tool.html.
the HBsAg Determine™ test was not available at the beginning of
the study, but rather six months later, the number of participants
Quality control of rapid tests varied among rapid tests (VIKIAÒ, N = 3928; Quick Profile™ HBsAg
test, N = 3922, anti-HBsAb test, N = 3739; Determine™, N = 2472).
Rapid tests were performed immediately after the participant’s sample was taken
and in the same room as where blood collection occurred. Staff noted the date HBsAg rapid tests
and time at which all tests were performed. Each rapid test had a control indicat-
ing whether the sample sufficiently migrated along the membrane (i.e., the test
Operator success and indeterminate results
was performed correctly). In the event of an invalid test, two other attempts were
made at most in order to achieve a valid result. Valid test results were then read Successful results were obtained on first attempt for the majority
within 30 min by two independent, previously-trained staff members (for a total of rapid tests (VikiaÒ: 99.8%; Determine™: 100%; Quick Profile™:
HBsAg serology ELISA AUC (95% CI) Se Sp PPV NPV LR+ LR-
Positive Negative
VIKIA® (n = 85) (n = 3843) 0.982 (0.962-1.000) 96.5 99.9 97.6 99.9 1854 0.04
Positive 82 2
Negative 3 3841
DETERMINETM (n = 47) (n = 2425) 0.968 (0.933-1.000) 93.6 100.0 100.0 99.9 ∞ 0.06
Positive 44 0
Negative 3 2425
QUICK PROFILETM (n = 84) (n = 3838) 0.951 (0.919-0.983) 90.5 99.7 88.4 99.8 347 0.10
Positive 76 10
Negative 8 3828
HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; ELISA, enzyme-linked immuno-assay; AUC, area under the curve; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV,
negative predictive value; LR+, positive likelihood ratio; LR-, negative likelihood ratio.
98.1%). For 6 VikiaÒ results considered as final in the analysis, one given for all false negative tests in Table 2. Median HBsAg levels
reader gave an indeterminate result and the other a negative one were significantly lower in patients with false negative versus
(all patients with HBsAg-negative serology). Of 5 final Deter- true positive tests (19.5 vs. 2351.0 IU/ml, p = 0.0001) and only 4
mine™ test results, 4 had one indeterminate and one negative false negative tests had HBsAg >10 IU/ml (Determine™, n = 1;
reading (3 with HBsAg-negative and 1 with HBsAg-positive serol- Quick Profile™, n = 3). Likewise, HBV-DNA levels were almost
ogy), while 1 was determined from one indeterminate and one all below 200 IU/ml, with the exception of one patient, with a
positive reading (HBsAg-serology positive). Finally, 11 final Quick false negative Quick Profile™, who had a HBV viral load at
Profile™ test results were obtained with at least one indetermi- 884 IU/ml, and one patient with a false negative Determine™
nate reading: 10 with the other reading being negative (all having test, with a HBV viral load at 1.02 106 IU/ml, and three positive
HBsAg-negative serology) and 1 with the other reading being serological markers (HBsAg+, anti-HBcAb, anti-HBsAb = 43 IU/l).
positive (HBsAg-negative serology). HBV from this last specimen was sequenced in the HBV S gene
and displayed the typical G145R immune escape mutation. Inter-
Inter-rater discrepancies estingly, only two participants had false negative results for all
Overall, between-rater agreement was high for the VikiaÒ, Deter- three rapid tests (although patient number I-2-124, who had
mine™, and Quick Profile™ HBsAg tests (r = 1.00, 0.95, 0.98, two false negative rapid tests, did not have an available Deter-
respectively). There were no inter-rater disagreements using mine™ rapid test). Two subjects had false positive tests (n = 2,
the VikiaÒ test. A total of 4 inter-rater disagreements were non-immunized) with the VIKIAÒ and 10 subjects (vaccinated,
observed with the Determine™ test, of which 3 were found in n = 7; non-immunized, n = 2; resolved HBV infection with anti-
non-immunized participants and one in a person with resolved HBsAb titer at 51 IU/l, n = 1) with the Quick Profile™ test. No false
HBV infection. Finally, 3 inter-rater disagreements were found positive tests were observed using the Determine™ test (Table 1).
with the Quick Profile™ test, of which 2 were among vaccinated
participants and 1 in a non-immunized person. Anti-HBsAb rapid test
Participant ELISA HBsAg HBsAg HBsAb HBV viral Hepatitis B clinical status*
rapid test titer titer load
HBsAg HBsAb HBcAb Reader 1 Reader 2 (IU/ml) (IU/ml) (IU/ml)
VIKIA®
I-2-124 + - + - - 5 <8 <12 Inactive carrier
I-2-309 + - + - - 2.3 <8 143 Lost to follow-up
I-8-272 + - + - - 5 <8 62 Inactive carrier
DETERMINETM
I-2-309 + - + - - 2.3 <8 143 Lost to follow-up
I-7-14 + + + ? - 90 43 >106 Active hepatitis B
I-8-272 + - + - - 5 <8 62 Inactive carrier
QUICK PROFILETM
I-2-124 + - + - - 5 <8 <12 Inactive carrier
I-2-245 + - + - - 50 <8 137 Inactive carrier
I-2-309 + - + - - 2.3 <8 143 Lost to follow-up
I-2-315 + - + - - 5226 <8 18 Inactive carrier
I-2-514 + - + - - 4.7 <8 48 Inactive carrier
I-6-36 + - + - - 7.4 <8 <12 Inactive hepatitis B with
advanced fibrosis
I-8-272 + - + - - 5 <8 62 Inactive carrier
I-8-368 + - + - - 304.7 <8 884 Inactive carrier; resolved
HCV co-infection
HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBsAb, anti-hepatitis B surface antibodies; HBcAb, anti-hepatitis B core antibodies; ELISA, enzyme-linked immuno-assay; HBV, hepatitis
B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; UI/ml, international unit per milliliter.
⁄
Determined from guidelines developed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) [12].
Table 3. Classification probabilities comparing the rapid anti-HBs antibody test compared to ELISA.
was significantly lower when compared to the gold standard ELISA. On the contrary, the anti-HBsAb test by Quick Profile™
(p <0.0001). would require further refinement in its sensitivity, albeit specific-
ity was rather high.
Discordant results In comparison with previous evaluations of HBV rapid tests,
A total of 36 (1.0%) false positive and 872 (23.3%) false negative this study presents several advantages. First, unlike the study
tests were identified with the anti-HBsAb Quick Profile™. Median populations from most previous research, our catchment area
anti-HBsAb titer of those with a false negative anti-HBsAb Quick was established in a low HBV-prevalent country, while including
Profile™ test was 58 IU/l (IQR: 24-157, min 10, max 1000). Fur- a large sample, representative of those likely to be screened.
thermore, 69.6% of participants with false negative tests had been Second, test effectiveness was the major focus in the sense that
previously vaccinated. rapid tests were carried out in settings outside of a specialized
laboratory, using whole blood specimens that were imme-
diately assayed after participants’ blood draw. Finally, since most
HBsAg-positive patients were followed at one specialized center,
Discussion the clinical features of those with false negative rapid tests could
be clarified in full detail.
While many HBV rapid tests are distributed worldwide, very few Notwithstanding these differences, we observed similar clas-
are available in Europe. After an extensive search of companies sification probabilities compared to previous reports mainly from
allowing Phase IV evaluation of their rapid tests, three were the Determine™ rapid test. All of these studies were conducted in
finally included in our study. All three HBsAg rapid tests, VikiaÒ, high HBsAg-prevalent countries (sensitivity between 94.4% and
Determine™, and Quick Profile™, met non-inferiority criteria and 98.9% and specificity between 99.4% and 100%) [9–11]. Only
were highly accurate in predicting HBsAg status as determined by one previous study has evaluated the effectiveness of the VIKIAÒ