Common causes of EID sample rejection in Zimbabwe and how to mitigate them

PLoS One. 2019 Aug 8;14(8):e0210136. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210136. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Early infant diagnosis (EID) of HIV provides an opportunity for early HIV detection and access to appropriate Antiretroviral treatment (ART). Dried Blood Spot (DBS) samples are used for EID of exposed infants, born to HIV-positive mothers. However, DBS rejection rates in Zimbabwe have been exceeding the target of less than 2% per month set by the National Microbiology Reference Laboratory (NMRL), in Harare. The aim of this study was to determine the DBS sample rejection rate, the reasons for rejection and the possible associations between rejection and level of health facility where the samples were collected. This is an analytical cross-sectional study using routine DBS sample data from the NMRL in Harare, Zimbabwe, between January and December 2017.A total of 34 950 DBS samples were received at the NMRL. Of these, 1291(4%) were rejected. Reasons for rejection were insufficient specimen volume (72%), missing request form (11%), missing sample (6%), cross-contamination (6%), mismatch of information (4%) and clotted sample (1%). Samples collected from clinics/rural health facilities were five times more likely to be rejected compared to those from a central hospital. Rejection rates were above the set target of <2%. The reasons for rejection were 'pre-analytical' errors including labelling errors, missing or inconsistent data, and insufficient blood collected. Samples collected at primary healthcare facilities had higher rejection rates.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Dried Blood Spot Testing / methods*
  • Dried Blood Spot Testing / trends
  • Early Diagnosis
  • Female
  • HIV Infections / diagnosis*
  • HIV-1
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Infant, Newborn
  • Male
  • Rural Health Services
  • Specimen Handling / methods*
  • Zimbabwe / epidemiology

Grants and funding

The programme was funded by: the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID); La Fondation Veuve Emile Metz-Tesch supported open access publications costs. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.