English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Viral load (VL) testing is being scaled up in resource-limited settings. However, not all commercially available VL testing methods have been evaluated under field conditions. This study is one of a few to evaluate the Biocentric platform for VL quantification in routine practice in Sub-Saharan Africa.    Methods  Venous blood specimens were obtained from patients eligible for VL testing at two health facilities in Swaziland from October 2016 to March 2017. Samples were centrifuged at two laboratories (LAB-1, LAB-2) to obtain paired plasma specimens for VL quantification with the national reference method and on the Biocentric platform. Agreement (correlation, Bland–Altman) and accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) indicators were calculated at the VL thresholds of 416 (2.62 log 10 ) and 1000 (3.0 log 10 ) copies/mL. Leftover samples from patients with discordant VL results were re-quantified and accuracy indicators recalculated. Logistic regression was used to compare laboratory performance.    Results  A total of 364 paired plasma samples (LAB-1:  n  = 198; LAB-2:  n  = 166) were successfully tested using both methods. The correlation was high ( R  = 0.82,  p  < 0.01), and the Bland–Altman analysis showed a minimal mean difference (− 0.03 log 10  copies/mL; 95% CI: -1.15 to 1.08). At the clinical threshold level of 3.0 log 10  copies/mL, the sensitivity was 88.6% (95% CI: 78.7 to 94.9) and the specificity was 98.3% (95% CI: 96.1 to 99.4). Sensitivity was higher in LAB-1 (100%; 95% CI: 71.5 to 100) than in LAB-2 (86.4%; 95% CI: 75.0 to 94.0). Most upward ( n  = 8, 2.2%) and downward ( n  = 11, 3.0%) misclassifications occurred at the 2.62 log threshold, with LAB-2 having a 16 (95% CI: 2.26 to 113.27;  p  = 0.006) times higher odds of downward misclassification. After retesting of discordant leftover samples ( n  = 17), overall sensitivity increased to 93.5% (95% CI: 85.5 to 97.9) and 97.1% (95% CI: 90.1 to 99.7) at the 2.62 and 3.0 thresholds, and specificity increased to 98.6% (95% CI: 96.5 to 99.6) and 99.0% (95% CI: 97.0 to 99.8) respectively.    Conclusions  The test characteristics of the Biocentric platform were overall comparable to the national reference method for VL quantification. One laboratory tended to misclassify VL results downwards, likely owing to unmet training needs and lack of previous hands-on practice.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-018-3474-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Field suitability and diagnostic accuracy of the Biocentric® open real-time PCR platform for plasma-based HIV viral load quantification in Swaziland