The Evidence to Support Point-of-Care Testing

Point-of-care testing (PoCT) is now possible in many areas of clinical medicine. This review examines the evidence for its application in four areas: self-monitoring; community testing primarily in the pharmacy; general practice; and the emergency department. In all of these areas except pharmacy, randomised controlled trials of PoCT versus central laboratory testing have been performed, with the results of some of these trials supporting the use of PoCT. Aside from providing evidence, these trials and other observational studies have provided valuable information about how PoCT should be conducted. In particular they have shown that adoption of the technology is often insufficient to achieve a benefit and in some cases a change of care process is also required.     

Point-of-Care Testing and Creatinine Measurement

This paper reviews the current status of point-of-care testing (PoCT) devices that are available for measuring whole blood or serum/plasma creatinine globally and within Australasia. Information on non-analytical specifications and analytical performance is provided using data sourced from recently published literature, external quality assurance programs and evaluative work by the author's unit. The limitations of current devices are summarised.     

Existing and Emerging Technologies for Point-of-Care Testing

The volume of point-of-care testing (PoCT) has steadily increased over the 40 or so years since its widespread introduction. That growth is likely to continue, driven by changes in healthcare delivery which are aimed at delivering less costly care closer to the patient’s home. In the developing world there is the challenge of more effective care for infectious diseases and PoCT may play a much greater role here in the future. PoCT technologies can be split into two categories, but in both, testing is generally performed by technologies first devised more than two decades ago. These technologies have undoubtedly been refined and improved to deliver easier-to-use devices with incremental improvements in analytical performance. Of the two major categories the first is small handheld devices, providing qualitative or quantitative determination of an increasing range of analytes. The dominant technologies here are glucose biosensor strips and lateral flow strips using immobilised antibodies to determine a range of parameters including cardiac markers and infectious pathogens. The second category of devices are larger, often bench-top devices which are essentially laboratory instruments which have been reduced in both size and complexity. These include critical care analysers and, more recently, small haematology and immunology analysers. New emerging devices include those that are utilising molecular techniques such as PCR to provide infectious disease testing in a sufficiently small device to be used at the point of care. This area is likely to grow with many devices being developed and likely to reach the commercial market in the next few years.     

Evolution of Point-of-Care Testing in Australia

Currently no mandatory standards or guidelines exist for Point-of-Care Testing (PoCT) in Australia. In 2001, a report on the role and value of ‘near patient testing’ in general practice outlined work that was required to assist the Australian Government to decide how to manage PoCT. Phillips Fox reported that adoption of mandatory accreditation requirements was not justified by the level of risk associated with PoCT.If implemented appropriately, PoCT could be useful with frontline management of chronic disease, relieving stress on general practice and expanding the reach of pathology.Interim PoCT standards in general practice were developed by a Quality Use of Pathology committee, and formed an accreditation framework for the PoCT in General Practice Trial. This trial concluded that PoCT has a role in supporting the primary healthcare team to manage chronic disease patients.While results of the trial are still being considered, the potential impact of funding PoCT in general practice is being treated as part of the wider review of pathology funding currently taking place in Australia.Although Australia has local models from which to draw experience, it has yet to decide the quality framework it would adopt if it was to roll out PoCT in general practice. The quality framework that Australia adopts for PoCT must achieve high quality pathology results that enhance clinical care.     

The Clinical and Economic Impact of Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Mozambique and Other Resource-Limited Settings: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

Point-of-care CD4 tests at HIV diagnosis could improve linkage to care in resource-limited settings. Our objective is to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of point-of-care CD4 tests compared to laboratory-based tests in Mozambique.

Methods and Findings

We use a validated model of HIV testing, linkage, and treatment (CEPAC-International) to examine two strategies of immunological staging in Mozambique: (1) laboratory-based CD4 testing (LAB-CD4) and (2) point-of-care CD4 testing (POC-CD4). Model outcomes include 5-y survival, life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Input parameters include linkage to care (LAB-CD4, 34%; POC-CD4, 61%), probability of correctly detecting antiretroviral therapy (ART) eligibility (sensitivity: LAB-CD4, 100%; POC-CD4, 90%) or ART ineligibility (specificity: LAB-CD4, 100%; POC-CD4, 85%), and test cost (LAB-CD4, US$10; POC-CD4, US$24). In sensitivity analyses, we vary POC-CD4-specific parameters, as well as cohort and setting parameters to reflect a range of scenarios in sub-Saharan Africa. We consider ICERs less than three times the per capita gross domestic product in Mozambique (US$570) to be cost-effective, and ICERs less than one times the per capita gross domestic product in Mozambique to be very cost-effective. Projected 5-y survival in HIV-infected persons with LAB-CD4 is 60.9% (95% CI, 60.9%–61.0%), increasing to 65.0% (95% CI, 64.9%–65.1%) with POC-CD4. Discounted life expectancy and per person lifetime costs with LAB-CD4 are 9.6 y (95% CI, 9.6–9.6 y) and US$2,440 (95% CI, US$2,440–US$2,450) and increase with POC-CD4 to 10.3 y (95% CI, 10.3–10.3 y) and US$2,800 (95% CI, US$2,790–US$2,800); the ICER of POC-CD4 compared to LAB-CD4 is US$500/year of life saved (YLS) (95% CI, US$480–US$520/YLS). POC-CD4 improves clinical outcomes and remains near the very cost-effective threshold in sensitivity analyses, even if point-of-care CD4 tests have lower sensitivity/specificity and higher cost than published values. In other resource-limited settings with fewer opportunities to access care, POC-CD4 has a greater impact on clinical outcomes and remains cost-effective compared to LAB-CD4. Limitations of the analysis include the uncertainty around input parameters, which is examined in sensitivity analyses. The potential added benefits due to decreased transmission are excluded; their inclusion would likely further increase the value of POC-CD4 compared to LAB-CD4.

Conclusions

POC-CD4 at the time of HIV diagnosis could improve survival and be cost-effective compared to LAB-CD4 in Mozambique, if it improves linkage to care. POC-CD4 could have the greatest impact on mortality in settings where resources for HIV testing and linkage are most limited. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Scaling Down to Scale Up: A Health Economic Analysis of Integrating Point-of-Care Syphilis Testing into Antenatal Care in Zambia during Pilot and National Rollout Implementation

Maternal syphilis results in an estimated 500,000 stillbirths and neonatal deaths annually in Sub-Saharan Africa. Despite the existence of national guidelines for antenatal syphilis screening, syphilis testing is often limited by inadequate laboratory and staff services. Recent availability of inexpensive rapid point-of-care syphilis tests (RST) can improve access to antenatal syphilis screening. A 2010 pilot in Zambia explored the feasibility of integrating RST within prevention of mother-to-child-transmission of HIV services. Following successful demonstration, the Zambian Ministry of Health adopted RSTs into national policy in 2011. Cost data from the pilot and 2012 preliminary national rollout were extracted from project records, antenatal registers, clinic staff interviews, and facility observations, with the aim of assessing the cost and quality implications of scaling up a successful pilot into a national rollout. Start-up, capital, and recurrent cost inputs were collected, including costs of extensive supervision and quality monitoring during the pilot. Costs were analysed from a provider’s perspective, incremental to existing antenatal services. Total and unit costs were calculated and a multivariate sensitivity analysis was performed. Our accompanying qualitative study by Ansbro et al. (2015) elucidated quality assurance and supervisory system challenges experienced during rollout, which helped explain key cost drivers. The average unit cost per woman screened during rollout ($11.16) was more than triple the pilot unit cost ($3.19). While quality assurance costs were much lower during rollout, the increased unit costs can be attributed to several factors, including higher RST prices and lower RST coverage during rollout, which reduced economies of scale. Pilot and rollout cost drivers differed due to implementation decisions related to training, supervision, and quality assurance. This study explored the cost of integrating RST into antenatal care in pilot and national rollout settings, and highlighted important differences in costs that may be observed when moving from pilot to scale-up.     

Barriers to Point-of-Care Testing in India: Results from Qualitative Research across Different Settings,Users and Major Diseases

Background

Successful point-of-care testing, namely ensuring the completion of the test and treat cycle in the same encounter, has immense potential to reduce diagnostic and treatment delays, and impact patient outcomes. However, having rapid tests is not enough, as many barriers may prevent their successful implementation in point-of-care testing programs. Qualitative research on diagnostic practices may help identify such barriers across different points of care in health systems.

Methods

In this exploratory qualitative study, we conducted 78 semi-structured interviews and 13 focus group discussions in an urban and rural area of Karnataka, India, with healthcare providers (doctors, nurses, specialists, traditional healers, and informal providers), patients, community health workers, test manufacturers, laboratory technicians, program managers and policy-makers. Participants were purposively sampled to represent settings of hospitals, peripheral labs, clinics, communities and homes, in both the public and private sectors.

Results

In the Indian context, the onus is on the patient to ensure successful point-of-care testing across homes, clinics, labs and hospitals, amidst uncoordinated providers with divergent and often competing practices, in settings lacking material, money and human resources. We identified three overarching themes affecting point-of-care testing: the main theme is ‘relationships’ among providers and between providers and patients, influenced by the cross-cutting theme of ‘infrastructure’. Challenges with both result in ‘modified practices’ often favouring empirical (symptomatic) treatment over treatment guided by testing.

Conclusions

Even if tests can be conducted on the spot and infrastructure challenges have been resolved, relationships among providers and between patients and providers are crucial for successful point-of-care testing. Furthermore, these barriers do not act in isolation, but are interlinked and need to be examined as such. Also, a test alone has only limited power to overcome those difficulties. Test developers, policy-makers, healthcare providers and funders need to use these insights in overcoming barriers to point-of-care testing programs.     

Point-of-Care CD4 Testing to Inform Selection of Antiretroviral Medications in South African Antenatal Clinics: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

Many prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT) programs currently prioritize antiretroviral therapy (ART) for women with advanced HIV. Point-of-care (POC) CD4 assays may expedite the selection of three-drug ART instead of zidovudine, but are costlier than traditional laboratory assays.

Methods

We used validated models of HIV infection to simulate pregnant, HIV-infected women (mean age 26 years, gestational age 26 weeks) in a general antenatal clinic in South Africa, and their infants. We examined two strategies for CD4 testing after HIV diagnosis: laboratory (test rate: 96%, result-return rate: 87%, cost: $14) and POC (test rate: 99%, result-return rate: 95%, cost: $26). We modeled South African PMTCT guidelines during the study period (WHO “Option A”): antenatal zidovudine (CD4 ≤350/μL) or ART (CD4>350/μL). Outcomes included MTCT risk at weaning (age 6 months), maternal and pediatric life expectancy (LE), maternal and pediatric lifetime healthcare costs (2013 USD), and cost-effectiveness ($/life-year saved).

Results

In the base case, laboratory led to projected MTCT risks of 5.7%, undiscounted pediatric LE of 53.2 years, and undiscounted PMTCT plus pediatric lifetime costs of $1,070/infant. POC led to lower modeled MTCT risk (5.3%), greater pediatric LE (53.4 years) and lower PMTCT plus pediatric lifetime costs ($1,040/infant). Maternal outcomes following laboratory were similar to POC (LE: 21.2 years; lifetime costs: $23,860/person). Compared to laboratory, POC improved clinical outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.

Conclusions

In antenatal clinics implementing Option A, the higher initial cost of a one-time POC CD4 assay will be offset by cost-savings from prevention of pediatric HIV infection.     

A Handheld Point-of-Care Genomic Diagnostic System

The rapid detection and identification of infectious disease pathogens is a critical need for healthcare in both developed and developing countries. As we gain more insight into the genomic basis of pathogen infectivity and drug resistance, point-of-care nucleic acid testing will likely become an important tool for global health. In this paper, we present an inexpensive, handheld, battery-powered instrument designed to enable pathogen genotyping in the developing world. Our Microfluidic Biomolecular Amplification Reader (µBAR) represents the convergence of molecular biology, microfluidics, optics, and electronics technology. The µBAR is capable of carrying out isothermal nucleic acid amplification assays with real-time fluorescence readout at a fraction of the cost of conventional benchtop thermocyclers. Additionally, the µBAR features cell phone data connectivity and GPS sample geotagging which can enable epidemiological surveying and remote healthcare delivery. The µBAR controls assay temperature through an integrated resistive heater and monitors real-time fluorescence signals from 60 individual reaction chambers using LEDs and phototransistors. Assays are carried out on PDMS disposable microfluidic cartridges which require no external power for sample loading. We characterize the fluorescence detection limits, heater uniformity, and battery life of the instrument. As a proof-of-principle, we demonstrate the detection of the HIV-1 integrase gene with the µBAR using the Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) assay. Although we focus on the detection of purified DNA here, LAMP has previously been demonstrated with a range of clinical samples, and our eventual goal is to develop a microfluidic device which includes on-chip sample preparation from raw samples. The µBAR is based entirely around open source hardware and software, and in the accompanying online supplement we present a full set of schematics, bill of materials, PCB layouts, CAD drawings, and source code for the µBAR instrument with the goal of spurring further innovation toward low-cost genetic diagnostics.     

Sensitivity and Specificity of Point-of-Care Rapid Combination Syphilis-HIV-HCV Tests

Background

New rapid point-of-care (POC) tests are being developed that would offer the opportunity to increase screening and treatment of several infections, including syphilis. This study evaluated three of these new rapid POC tests at a site in Southern California.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a testing center in Long Beach, California. A whole blood specimen was used to evaluate the performance of the Dual Path Platform (DPP) Syphilis Screen & Confirm, DPP HIV-Syphilis, and DPP HIV-HCV-Syphilis rapid tests. The gold-standard comparisons were Treponema pallidum passive particle agglutination (TPPA), rapid plasma reagin (RPR), HCV enzyme immunoassay (EIA), and HIV-1/2 EIA.

Results

A total of 948 whole blood specimens were analyzed in this study. The sensitivity of the HIV tests ranged from 95.7–100% and the specificity was 99.7–100%. The sensitivity and specificity of the HCV test were 91.8% and 99.3%, respectively. The treponemal-test sensitivity when compared to TPPA ranged from 44.0–52.7% and specificity was 98.7–99.6%. The non-treponemal test sensitivity and specificity when compared to RPR was 47.8% and 98.9%, respectively. The sensitivity of the Screen & Confirm test improved to 90.0% when cases who were both treponemal and nontreponemal positive were compared to TPPA+/RPR ≥1∶8.

Conclusions

The HIV and HCV on the multi-infection tests showed good performance, but the treponemal and nontreponemal tests had low sensitivity. These results could be due to a low prevalence of active syphilis in the sample population because the sensitivity improved when the gold standard was limited to those more likely to be active cases. Further evaluation of the new syphilis POC tests is required before implementation into testing programs.