Abstract
Background Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is a re-emerging arboviral disease and represents a global health threat because of the unprecedented magnitude of its spread. Diagnostics strategies rely heavily on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and antibody detection by Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) are available and promise to decentralize testing and increase availability at lower healthcare system levels.
Objectives We aim to identify the extent of research on CHIKV RDTs, map the global availability of CHIKV RDTs, and evaluate the accuracy of CHIKV RDTs for the diagnosis of CHIKV.
Eligibility criteria We included studies reporting symptomatic individuals suspected of CHIKV, tested with CHIKV RDTs, against the comparator being a validated laboratory-based RT-PCR or ELISA assay. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the CHIKV RDT when compared with reference assays.
Sources of evidence Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from inception to October 13th, 2021. National regulatory agencies (European Medicines Agency, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency) were also searched for registered CHIKV RDTs.
Results Eighteen studies were included and corresponded to 3722 samples tested with RDTs between 2005-2019. The most development stage of CHIKV RDTs studies was phase I (7/18 studies) and II (7/18 studies). No studies were in phase IV. The countries that manufacturer the most CHIKV RDTs were Brazil (n=17), followed by the USA (n=7), and India (n=6). Neither at EMA nor FDA, registered products were found. Conversely, the ANVISA has approved 23 CHIKV RDTs. Antibody RDTs (n=43) predominated and demonstrated sensitivity between 20% and 100%. The sensitivity of the antigen RDTs ranged from 33.3 to 100%.
Conclusions The landscape of CHIKV RDTs is fragmented and needs coordinated efforts to ensure that patients in CHIKV-endemic areas have access to appropriate RDTs. Further research is crucial to determine the impact of such tests on integrated fever case management and prescription practices for acute febrile patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The source of data is open and is available at Medline, EMBASE, and Scopus databases.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
