UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Licencing of diagnostic HIV kits-to keep a sensible standpoint in an area of permanent revolution.


Schüpbach, J (1996). Licencing of diagnostic HIV kits-to keep a sensible standpoint in an area of permanent revolution. Clinical and Diagnostic Virology, 5(2-3):137-146.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In vitro diagnostic medical devices or 'test kits' are important tools for diagnosing illnesses and monitoring the patients' state of health or the effects of medical treatment. It is in the public interest that commercial kits are of high quality. OBJECTIVES: To review the current situation of kit evaluation in Europe and to establish practical and sensible criteria for kit evaluation in general, based on the Swiss experience with the licencing of kits for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Kit evaluation should provide the user with a selection of sufficiently good products. In addition, it should be simple and not require rare patient materials. Also of importance is that all manufacturers are treated equally. METHODS: The evaluation criteria depend on the legal situation, the intended use of the test, the state of the art and the graveness of false-negative or -positive results. In addition to diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, other important considerations include the quality control by the manufacturer, kit presentation, intra- and inter-lot reproducibility and how a test fits into a country's adopted testing system. Results: The above goals can be achieved by setting minimal performance standards, preferably in the form of a lower limit of the confidence interval for the sensitivity/specificity that has been observed in the test's field evaluation. The better the test, the fewer samples have to be studied. For tests with no false results observed during field trials, the minimum sample number necessary for demonstration of a sensitivity or specificity >/= 99% is about 400, while it is 700 for a >/= 99.5% demonstration. Further insight into sensitivity is provided by results from well described and frequently used commercial seroconversion panels. This represents a dynamic tool that readily identifies insensitive kits that have become technically obsolete. Specificity assessment should not only involve blood donors, but also appropriate clinical controls. It is clear that the test design has an important bearing with respect to sensitivity and specificity. There are inherent advantages and disadvantages of indirect binding assays, capture assays and double antigen sandwich assays. Positive or negative results with these different test formats may not carry exactly the same message. CONCLUSION: Efficient kit evaluation does not require tens of thousands of samples but can be performed with relatively little disbursement on materials and manpower.

BACKGROUND: In vitro diagnostic medical devices or 'test kits' are important tools for diagnosing illnesses and monitoring the patients' state of health or the effects of medical treatment. It is in the public interest that commercial kits are of high quality. OBJECTIVES: To review the current situation of kit evaluation in Europe and to establish practical and sensible criteria for kit evaluation in general, based on the Swiss experience with the licencing of kits for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Kit evaluation should provide the user with a selection of sufficiently good products. In addition, it should be simple and not require rare patient materials. Also of importance is that all manufacturers are treated equally. METHODS: The evaluation criteria depend on the legal situation, the intended use of the test, the state of the art and the graveness of false-negative or -positive results. In addition to diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, other important considerations include the quality control by the manufacturer, kit presentation, intra- and inter-lot reproducibility and how a test fits into a country's adopted testing system. Results: The above goals can be achieved by setting minimal performance standards, preferably in the form of a lower limit of the confidence interval for the sensitivity/specificity that has been observed in the test's field evaluation. The better the test, the fewer samples have to be studied. For tests with no false results observed during field trials, the minimum sample number necessary for demonstration of a sensitivity or specificity >/= 99% is about 400, while it is 700 for a >/= 99.5% demonstration. Further insight into sensitivity is provided by results from well described and frequently used commercial seroconversion panels. This represents a dynamic tool that readily identifies insensitive kits that have become technically obsolete. Specificity assessment should not only involve blood donors, but also appropriate clinical controls. It is clear that the test design has an important bearing with respect to sensitivity and specificity. There are inherent advantages and disadvantages of indirect binding assays, capture assays and double antigen sandwich assays. Positive or negative results with these different test formats may not carry exactly the same message. CONCLUSION: Efficient kit evaluation does not require tens of thousands of samples but can be performed with relatively little disbursement on materials and manpower.

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Medical Virology
Dewey Decimal Classification:570 Life sciences; biology
610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:1 May 1996
Deposited On:11 Feb 2008 12:28
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:22
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0928-0197
Publisher DOI:10.1016/0928-0197(96)00215-2
PubMed ID:15566872

Download

Full text not available from this repository.View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations