Malaria dipsticks beneficial for IMCI in Cambodia

Rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosing uncomplicated non-falciparum or Plasmodium vivax malaria in endemic countries

BACKGROUND

In settings where both Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum infection cause malaria, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) need to distinguish which species is causing the patients' symptoms, as different treatments are required. Older RDTs incorporated two test lines to distinguish malaria due to P. falciparum, from malaria due to any other Plasmodium species (non-falciparum). These RDTs can be classified according to which antibodies they use: Type 2 RDTs use HRP-2 (for P. falciparum) and aldolase (all species); Type 3 RDTs use HRP-2 (for P. falciparum) and pLDH (all species); Type 4 use pLDH (fromP. falciparum) and pLDH (all species).More recently, RDTs have been developed to distinguish P. vivax parasitaemia by utilizing a pLDH antibody specific to P. vivax.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for detecting non-falciparum or P. vivax parasitaemia in people living in malaria-endemic areas who present to ambulatory healthcare facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria, and to identify which types and brands of commercial test best detect non-falciparum and P. vivax malaria.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases up to 31 December 2013: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; MEDION; Science Citation Index; Web of Knowledge; African Index Medicus; LILACS; and IndMED.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing RDTs with a reference standard (microscopy or polymerase chain reaction) in blood samples from a random or consecutive series of patients attending ambulatory health facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria in non-falciparum endemic areas.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each study, two review authors independently extracted a standard set of data using a tailored data extraction form. We grouped comparisons by type of RDT (defined by the combinations of antibodies used), and combined in meta-analysis where appropriate. Average sensitivities and specificities are presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 studies enrolling 22,862 participants. Patient characteristics, sampling methods and reference standard methods were poorly reported in most studies. RDTs detecting 'non-falciparum' parasitaemiaEleven studies evaluated Type 2 tests compared with microscopy, 25 evaluated Type 3 tests, and 11 evaluated Type 4 tests. In meta-analyses, average sensitivities and specificities were 78% (95% CI 73% to 82%) and 99% (95% CI 97% to 99%) for Type 2 tests, 78% (95% CI 69% to 84%) and 99% (95% CI 98% to 99%) for Type 3 tests, and 89% (95% CI 79% to 95%) and 98% (95% CI 97% to 99%) for Type 4 tests, respectively. Type 4 tests were more sensitive than both Type 2 (P = 0.01) and Type 3 tests (P = 0.03).Five studies compared Type 3 tests with PCR; in meta-analysis, the average sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% CI 72% to 88%) and 99% (95% CI 97% to 99%) respectively. RDTs detecting P.vivax parasitaemiaEight studies compared pLDH tests to microscopy; the average sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and 99% (95% CI 99% to 100%), respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RDTs designed to detect P. vivax specifically, whether alone or as part of a mixed infection, appear to be more accurate than older tests designed to distinguish P. falciparum malaria from non-falciparum malaria. Compared to microscopy, these tests fail to detect around 5% ofP. vivax cases. This Cochrane Review, in combination with other published information about in vitro test performance and stability in the field, can assist policy-makers to choose between the available RDTs.

Comparative evaluation of two rapid field tests for malaria diagnosis: Partec Rapid Malaria Test® and Binax Now® Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test

BACKGROUND

About 90% of all malaria deaths in sub-Saharan Africa occur in children under five years. Fast and reliable diagnosis of malaria requires confirmation of the presence of malaria parasites in the blood of patients with fever or history suggestive of malaria; hence a prompt and accurate diagnosis of malaria is the key to effective disease management. Confirmation of malaria infection requires the availability of a rapid, sensitive, and specific testing at an affordable cost. We compared two recent methods (the novel Partec Rapid Malaria Test® (PT) and the Binax Now® Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test (BN RDT) with the conventional Giemsa stain microscopy (GM) for the diagnosis of malaria among children in a clinical laboratory of a hospital in a rural endemic area of Ghana.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected from 263 children admitted with fever or a history of fever to the pediatric clinic of the Agogo Presbyterian Hospital. The three different test methods PT, BN RDT and GM were performed independently by well trained and competent laboratory staff to assess the presence of malaria parasites. Results were analyzed and compared using GM as the reference standard.

RESULTS

In 107 (40.7%) of 263 study participants, Plasmodium sp. was detected by GM. PT and BN RDT showed positive results in 111 (42.2%) and 114 (43.4%), respectively. Compared to GM reference standard, the sensitivities of the PT and BN RDT were 100% (95% CI: 96.6-100) and 97.2% (95% CI: 92.0-99.4), respectively, specificities were 97.4% (95% CI: 93.6-99.3) and 93.6% (95% CI: 88.5-96.9), respectively. There was a strong agreement (kappa) between the applied test methods (GM vs PT: 0.97; p < 0.001 and GM vs BN RDT: 0.90; p < 0.001). The average turnaround time per tests was 17 minutes.

CONCLUSION

In this study two rapid malaria tests, PT and BN RDT, demonstrated a good quality of their performance compared to conventional GM. Both methods require little training, have short turnaround times, are applicable as well as affordable and can therefore be considered as alternative diagnostic tools in malaria endemic areas. The species of Plasmodium cannot be identified.

Comment évaluer la morbidité attribuable au paludisme en zone d’endémie ?

There are no specific clinical signs or symptoms of malaria. Fever attacks, anemia, or signs of severity like coma or respiratory distress cannot easily be attributed to malaria in people who are infected most of the time. Ascribing clinical manifestations to malaria is problematic in populations that are regularly exposed to the transmission of human plasmodia. The more transmission is intense and regular, the higher the prevalence of asymptomatic infections. In areas of intense and perennial malaria transmission, more than 90% of the population may be infected and the simple detection of a plasmodial infection is not enough to attribute clinical manifestations to malaria. Naturally acquired anti-malaria immunity permitting asymptomatic infections is incomplete and temporary. It is an obstacle to the estimation of the malaria burden in endemic areas. The positive association between parasite density and fever allows the attribution of clinical attacks to malaria. The relationship between parasitaemia and the risk of fever is not continuous. An age- and endemicity-dependent threshold effect of parasite density has been demonstrated and can be used to distinguish clinical attacks due to malaria from others. Clinical diagnosis and evaluation of malaria are problematic in three situations: in public health to estimate the malaria burden for health services, in clinical research to evaluate treatments or prophylactic measures (drug, vaccine, anti-vectorial devices), and in basic research on pathophysiology, immunology or genetic susceptibility to clinical malaria. No one diagnostic definition nor procedure for detecting cases is adequate for all three purposes. Case detection may be passive (in health structures for example) or active (in population). The choice of methods for diagnosis and recruitment depends on the objectives and whether a "pragmatic" or "explicative" approach is used. The radical differences between these approaches are often unsuspected or ignored.

Rapid diagnostic testing for malaria

Malaria rapid diagnostic devices (MRDD) have been developed with the hope that they would offer accurate, reliable, rapid, cheap and easily available alternatives to traditional methods of malaria diagnosis. The results from early malaria rapid diagnostic studies were quite promising, especially for detecting Plasmodium falciparum at densities of more than 100-500 parasites/microl. Despite the introduction of these devices over a decade ago, only a few target antigens have been introduced. Of greater concern, these devices have shown limitations in sensitivity, ability to differentiate species and robustness under field conditions in the tropics. Recent trials have revealed wide variability in sensitivity both within and between products. We review the recent trials assessing MRDD use for the diagnosis of P. falciparum and non-P. falciparum infections in endemic and non-endemic countries and describe the various aspects of these devices which need further improvement. High quality, accurate, rapid and affordable diagnostic tools are urgently needed now that new antimalarial regimens, characterized by higher cost and increased toxicity, have been introduced more widely in response to emerging multi-drug resistance.