Clinical significance of molecular methods in the diagnosis of imported malaria in returning travelers in Serbia

The Laboratory Diagnosis of Malaria: A Focus on the Diagnostic Assays in Non-Endemic Areas

Even if malaria is rare in Europe, it is a medical emergency and programs for its control should ensure both an early diagnosis and a prompt treatment within 24-48 h from the onset of the symptoms. The increasing number of imported malaria cases as well as the risk of the reintroduction of autochthonous cases encouraged laboratories in non-endemic countries to adopt diagnostic methods/algorithms. Microscopy remains the gold standard, but with limitations. Rapid diagnostic tests have greatly expanded the ability to diagnose malaria for rapid results due to simplicity and low cost, but they lack sensitivity and specificity. PCR-based assays provide more relevant information but need well-trained technicians. As reported in the World Health Organization Global Technical Strategy for Malaria 2016-2030, the development of point-of-care testing is important for the improvement of diagnosis with beneficial consequences for prompt/accurate treatment and for preventing the spread of the disease. Despite their limitations, diagnostic methods contribute to the decline of malaria mortality. Recently, evidence suggested that artificial intelligence could be utilized for assisting pathologists in malaria diagnosis.

Difference between Microscopic and PCR Examination Result for Malaria Diagnosis and Treatment Evaluation in Sumba Barat Daya, Indonesia

Microscopic examination is the backbone of malaria diagnosis and treatment evaluation in Indonesia. This test has limited ability to detect malaria at low parasite density. Inversely, nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can detect parasites at a density below the microscopic examination’s detection limit. The objective of this study is to compare microscopic and PCR results when being used to identify malaria in suspected patients and patients who underwent dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine (DHP) therapy in the last 3–8 weeks with or without symptoms in Sumba Barat Daya, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia. Recruitment was conducted between April 2019 and February 2020. Blood samples were then taken for microscopic and PCR examinations. Participants (n = 409) were divided into three groups: suspected malaria (42.5%), post-DHP therapy with fever (4.9%), and post-DHP therapy without fever (52.6%). Microscopic examination found five cases of P. falciparum + P. vivax infection, while PCR found 346 cases. All microscopic examinations turned negative in the post-DHP-therapy group. Conversely, PCR result from the same group yielded 29 negative results. Overall, our study showed that microscopic examination and PCR generated different results in detecting Plasmodium species, especially in patients with mixed infection and in patients who recently underwent DHP therapy.

Malaria Diagnosis in Non-Endemic Settings: The European Experience in the Last 22 Years

Accurate, prompt, and reliable tools for the diagnosis of malaria are crucial for tracking the successes or drawbacks of control and elimination efforts, and for future programs aimed at global malaria eradication. Although microscopy remains the gold standard method, the number of imported malaria cases and the risk of reappearance of autochthonous cases stimulated several laboratories located in European countries to evaluate methods and algorithms suited to non-endemic settings, where skilled microscopists are not always available. In this review, an overview of the field evaluation and a comparison of the methods used for the diagnosis of malaria by European laboratories is reported, showing that the development of numerous innovations is continuous. In particular, the combination of rapid diagnostic tests and molecular assays with microscopy represents a reliable system for the early diagnosis of malaria in non-endemic settings.

Imported Malaria in Countries where Malaria Is Not Endemic: a Comparison of Semi-immune and Nonimmune Travelers

The continuous increase in long-distance travel and recent large migratory movements have changed the epidemiological characteristics of imported malaria in countries where malaria is not endemic (here termed non-malaria-endemic countries). While malaria was primarily imported to nonendemic countries by returning travelers, the proportion of immigrants from malaria-endemic regions and travelers visiting friends and relatives (VFRs) in malaria-endemic countries has continued to increase. VFRs and immigrants from malaria-endemic countries now make up the majority of malaria patients in many nonendemic countries. Importantly, this group is characterized by various degrees of semi-immunity to malaria, resulting from repeated exposure to infection and a gradual decline of protection as a result of prolonged residence in non-malaria-endemic regions. Most studies indicate an effect of naturally acquired immunity in VFRs, leading to differences in the parasitological features, clinical manifestation, and odds for severe malaria and clinical complications between immune VFRs and nonimmune returning travelers. There are no valid data indicating evidence for differing algorithms for chemoprophylaxis or antimalarial treatment in semi-immune versus nonimmune malaria patients. So far, no robust biomarkers exist that properly reflect anti-parasite or clinical immunity. Until they are found, researchers should rigorously stratify their study results using surrogate markers, such as duration of time spent outside a malaria-endemic country.

Evaluation of PCR To Monitor Plasmodium falciparum Treatment Efficacy in a Nonendemicity Setting

Adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) after malaria treatment remains challenging to assess in settings of malaria nonendemicity. Biological evaluation of parasitological clearance relies on microscopic investigation of thick blood smears, which is a specific technique that not all diagnosis laboratories are able to perform. Rapid diagnosis tests (RDTs) and molecular biology techniques are proposed as alternatives to microscope conventional techniques; however, their performance for treatment efficacy evaluation is controversial. We present here a retrospective comparative study for RDT and PCR (nested and high-resolution-melting quantitative PCR [HRM-qPCR]) evaluation of ACPR in a nonendemicity context. Blood samples from 133 patients presenting a Plasmodium falciparum monoinfection were included. Samples obtained at the time of diagnosis and at 3, 7, and 28 days after diagnosis were investigated. Histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP-2)-based RDT results remained positive in 51% of cases 28 days after diagnosis and appropriate therapeutic management. Parasite DNA was detected by the two PCR techniques (nested PCR and HRM-qPCR) in 12% and 10% of samples 28 days after treatment initiation, respectively. No therapeutic failure was recorded in the studied patients. Persistence of positive signal might reflect the presence of circulating asexual parasites or persistence of HRP-2 and parasitic DNA in patient's peripheral blood after parasitic clearance.

Detection of Malaria Parasites After Treatment in Travelers: A 12-months Longitudinal Study and Statistical Modelling Analysis

The rapid clearance of malaria parasite DNA from circulation has widely been accepted as a fact without being systemically investigated. We assessed the persistence of parasite DNA in travelers treated for Plasmodium falciparum malaria in a malaria-free area. Venous blood was collected at the time of admission and prospectively up to one year. DNA and RNA were extracted and analyzed using species-specific and gametocyte-specific real-time PCR as well as merozoite surface protein 2 (msp2)-PCR. In 31 successfully treated individuals, asexual parasites were seen by microscopy until two days after treatment, whereas parasite DNA was detected by msp2- and species-specific PCR up to days 31 and 42, respectively. Statistical modelling predicted 26% (±0·05 SE) species-specific PCR positivity until day 40 and estimated 48days for all samples to become PCR negative. Gametocytes were detected by microscopy and PCR latest two days after treatment. C_T values correlated well with microscopy-defined parasite densities before but not after treatment started. These results reveal that PCR positivity can persist several weeks after treatment without evidence of viable sexual or asexual parasites, indicating that PCR may overestimate parasite prevalence after treatment.