$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Canine rabies is the main cause of human rabies, globally responsible for approximately 59,000 human deaths per year, nearly all occurring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in Asia and Africa1. The main etiological agent is a neurotropic canine-associated classical rabies virus (RABV, family Rhabdoviridae, genus Lyssavirus, species Rabies lyssavirus). However, other rabies-related lyssaviruses, mostly circulating in bat species, also cause disease2,3. In affected regions, disease surveillance and control are often hampered by low level political commitment likely due to lack of reliable data4,5,6. One reason for disease underreporting is the absence of laboratory diagnosis, due in part to limited access to equipped laboratories and trained staff as well as the difficulties of shipment of the specimens. Laboratory diagnosis is necessary to confirm rabies cases and additionally allows for genetic characterization of the involved strains, providing insight on virus transmission at the regional level4,5,7.
The current gold standards for postmortem rabies diagnosis, approved by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), are the direct fluorescent antibody test (DFAT), the direct rapid immunohistochemistry test (DRIT) and molecular methods (e.g., reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR))4,8. However, proper application in LMICs remains limited due to inadequate laboratory facilities with inconsistent power supply, uncooled sample transportation, and lack of a quality management system. Because animal rabies diagnosis is typically only conducted at central veterinary laboratories in LMICs, existing surveillance data mainly reflects the rabies situation in urban areas.
Recently developed low technology diagnostic alternatives offer opportunities to establish rabies diagnosis in remote areas and decentralized rabies laboratories4,8,9. The rapid immunochromatographic diagnostic test (RIDT) is a lateral flow test based on immunochromatography using gold conjugated detector antibodies and is a very promising rabies diagnostic tool10,11,12,13. The principle is simple: after dilution, brain material is mixed in the provided buffer, and a few drops are applied on the test strip where gold conjugated monoclonal antibodies bind specifically to rabies antigens, mainly the nucleoproteins (Figure 1). The antigen-antibody complexes then undergo lateral flow migration, binding at the test line (T-line) to fixed antibodies against rabies antigens, resulting in a clearly visible purple line. The remaining gold conjugated antibodies not bound to rabies antigens continue migrating and fix to the membrane through additional targeting antibodies, resulting in a clearly visible purple control line (C-line).
The one-step, low cost method is rapid, extremely easy and does not require expensive equipment or special storage conditions. With modification of the manufacturer protocol to eliminate the dilution step, nearly all equipment and reagents required to perform the test are included in the kit14. The result is read after 5-10 minutes without a microscope. This is a major advantage over the DFAT test, which requires a fluorescence microscope and immunofluorescence conjugate, along with refrigerated transportation and sample storage. Even the DRIT test, which can be performed using a light microscope, requires a continuous cold chain to store the anti-rabies antibodies, which are also not yet commercially available. In comparison to the DRIT, the RIDT requires no toxic chemicals, a particular advantage in countries where waste disposal is poorly regulated. The rapid test is less time-consuming with much easier interpretation compared to the gold standard tests DFAT and DRIT. This allows for on-site testing by personnel with limited technical expertise.
Based on these test properties, prompt diagnosis of suspected animals in remote areas becomes feasible, facilitating implementation of post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for exposed people as soon as possible. In addition, distance transport of rabies samples is not necessary, resulting in better sample quality at the time of testing. However, the results obtained with the RIDT tests should currently be confirmed using a reference diagnostic test such as DFAT or DRIT.
RIDT techniques for detection of RABV and other lyssaviruses have been evaluated. One of the first studies was conducted by Korean researchers in 200710. Compared to the DFAT method, in 51 animal samples and 4 RABV isolates, the RIDT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 91.7% and 100%, respectively. These results were later confirmed with 110 animal brain samples from Korea, with sensitivity and specificity, compared to DFAT, of 95% and 98.9%, respectively15. More recently, other studies assessed the performance of this RIDT using virus isolates and/or infected brain samples from various animals with different geographical origins. A panel of 21 samples, including African RABV and other African lyssaviruses (Duvenhage virus (DUVV), Lagos bat virus (LBV) and Mokola virus (MOKV)), were successfully detected, with sensitivity of 100% compared to the DFAT16. Similar high sensitivity (96.5%) and specificity (100%) values were obtained from a panel of 115 brain samples from Ethiopia17. Another study evaluated European RABV isolates, two other European lyssaviruses (European bat lyssavirus type 1 (EBLV-1) and type 2 (EBLV-2)), and the Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV)18. Based on analysis of 172 animal brain samples, the RIDT kit had 88.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to DFAT, and the three rabies-related lyssaviruses were successfully detected. In this study, some of the false negative results came from brain samples stored in glycerol buffer, suggesting that improper glycerol removal influenced capillary flow or antibody binding. A recent analysis of 43 clinical samples from Australian bats confirmed previous test results, with complete concordance to DFAT19. Two studies were conducted in India using the RIDT on a limited number of clinical samples (11 and 34 samples). Compared to DFAT, sensitivity was between 85.7% and 91.7% and specificity was 100%20,21. Another evaluation of this kit using 80 animal brain samples from Africa, Europe and the Middle East obtained complete concordance with DFAT for specificity (100%) but a higher sensitivity (96.9%) compared to the previous studies22. In a recent inter-laboratory comparison of this RIDT performed in 22 different laboratories using a panel of 10 samples, overall concordance was 99.5%23.
Only one recent multicentric study showed unsatisfactory overall RIDT performance24. Samples from three different datasets were tested and provided variable sensitivity and specificity values compared to DFAT. For example, sensitivity and specificity obtained with the first panel (n=51) and the second panel (n=31) of samples from experimental infected animals, all tested in laboratory A, gave a sensitivity of 16% and 43%, respectively, whereas the specificity was 100% for both. Conversely, the results of the third panel (n=30) of field clinical samples analyzed by laboratory B provided a complete concordance with the results of DFAT, which was further nearly completely confirmed by laboratory A (85% sensitivity and 100% specificity). Batch-to-batch variation was suggested as a possible explanation for the fluctuating relatively low sensitivity with RIDT24.
At the same time, another study performed a similar validation process of the above described RIDT, with a modification of the manufacturer recommended protocol14. The pre-dilution step (1:10) in PBS was omitted during preparation of the brain material. Based on this simpler modified protocol, the authors obtained sensitivity and specificity of 95.3% and 93.3%, respectively, compared to DFAT by testing, under laboratory conditions, a dataset of 73 animal brain samples, naturally or experimentally infected with various RABV strains. The study presented the first evaluation of this RIDT in a field setting (Chad, Africa). In 48 clinical brain samples, sensitivity and specificity were 94.4% and 100%, respectively. The discrepancies between DFAT and RIDT were due to false positive results with DFAT, determined after confirmation with RT-PCR. When these results were deleted, there was complete concordance, and it demonstrated that the RIDT was more reliable that DFAT under these field conditions14. No batch-to-batch variation was observed using the modified protocol. When the modified protocol was applied to a small number of the DFAT/ RIDT divergent samples (n=8) in the study of Eggerbauer et al.24, all were found concordant (100% sensitivity).
Another major advantage of the RIDT is secondary use for detecting viral RNA fixed on the strip using molecular techniques (such as RT-PCR) and subsequent genotyping14,24. Following an extraction step, Léchenne et al.14 demonstrated viral RNA fixed on the Anigen device membrane using RT-PCR with 86.3% sensitivity in a panel of 51 samples (including 18 samples tested and shipped from Chad at ambient temperature). Subsequent genotyping was possible in 93% of the 14 samples tested. Sanger sequencing of PCR amplicons of at least 500 nucleotides in length were used. In addition to RABV isolates, the test detected four other lyssavirus species, DUVV, EBLV-1, EBLV-2 and Bokeloh bat lyssavirus (BBLV), during a fully concordant international inter laboratory test14. The sensitivity of viral RNA detection was even higher (100%) in the study of Eggerbauer et al., based on laboratory samples examination24. The latter study also demonstrated that the buffer used in the RIDT kit inactivated virus. Thereby, the devices can be shipped easily, at ambient temperature without specific biosafety precautions to reference laboratories, for molecular confirmation and genotyping.
Based on the previous evaluations, RIDT tools offer numerous advantages for use in field settings, especially when the reference diagnostic techniques are not available. However, this test also has some limitations, in particular, low sensitivity of antigen detection14,24. The test is applicable for samples containing high quantities of viral antigens, such as brain samples. However, it is not appropriate for other samples such as saliva or other body fluids. Another drawback is cost of the device (around 5-10 Euros in Europe), which is less expensive compared to the cost of performing DFAT, RT-PCR or DRIT, but which still remains high for LMICs. However, future development and validation of similar RIDTs from other companies could lead to a price decrease. One study reported batch-to-batch variations. Although not reported by others, strict quality controls should nevertheless be performed when testing a new batch, as for any reagent used in a quality management environment. The use of the modified protocol was not altered when using different batches14. All except one study demonstrated that the sensitivity of RDIT was high compared to DFAT (around 90%-95%). Because rabies is always fatal, it is still strongly recommended to confirm any negative results with RDIT using a reference diagnostic test such as DFAT, DRIT or RT-PCR14.
In this manuscript, we present a complete protocol for field postmortem diagnosis of animal rabies based on an example of a commercialized RIDT, from brain sample collection to application of a modified protocol compared to the manufacturer recommendations (which were previously validated14) and subsequent molecular analysis. This protocol was applied and validated many times under field conditions in West- and Central Africa, where the RIDT was used routinely for rabies diagnosis alongside the DFAT test. We additionally demonstrate a second application for the device, in laboratory settings, for extraction and detection using RT-PCR of viral RNA fixed on the device.