Added value of loop-mediated isothermal amplification technology (LAMP) in real life for the diagnosis of malaria in travellers

Head-to-head comparison of two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) kits for diagnosis of malaria in a non-endemic setting

BACKGROUND

Light microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) have long been the recommended diagnostic methods for malaria. However, in recent years, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) techniques have been shown to offer superior performance, in particular concerning low-grade parasitaemia, by delivering higher sensitivity and specificity with low laboratory capacity requirements in little more than an hour. In this study, the diagnostic performance of two LAMP kits were assessed head-to-head, compared to highly sensitive quantitative real time PCR (qPCR), in a non-endemic setting.

METHODS

In this retrospective validation study two LAMP kits; Alethia® Illumigene Malaria kit and HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria Pan Detection (PDT) kit, were evaluated head-to-head for detection of Plasmodium-DNA in 133 biobanked blood samples from suspected malaria cases at the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory of Region Skåne, Sweden to determine their diagnostic performance compared to qPCR.

RESULTS

Of the 133 samples tested, qPCR detected Plasmodium DNA in 41 samples (defined as true positives), and the two LAMP methods detected 41 and 37 of those, respectively. The results from the HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria PDT kit were in complete congruence with the qPCR, with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 91.40-100%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 96.07-100%). The Alethia® Illumigene Malaria kit had a sensitivity of 90.24% (95% CI 76.87-97.28) and a specificity of 95.65% (95% CI 89.24-98.80) as compared to qPCR.

CONCLUSIONS

This head-to-head comparison showed higher performance indicators of the HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria PDT kit compared to the Alethia® illumigene Malaria kit for detection of malaria.

Usefulness of a commercial LAMP assay for detection of malaria infection, including Plasmodium knowlesi cases, in returning travelers in Spain

Objective

Main malaria diagnosis is based on microscopic examination combined with rapid diagnostic tests. Both methods have low sensitivity and specificity. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification techniques have shown a sensitivity similar to PCR but with lower times of performance. This study aimed to assess a commercial LAMP for the diagnosis of malaria (Alethia® Malaria) against the Nested-Multiplex-Malaria PCR, including the analytical sensitivity and the operational characteristics.

Results

One hundred five samples out of 114 rendered valid results, obtaining 85 positive samples and 18 negative samples with an agreement of 98% compared to the reference method with a sensitivity, specificity and kappa coefficient of 98.84%, 94.74% and 0.94 respectively, with only two discrepant samples. The turnaround time was estimated in 1 h and 30 min, with a cost of 32.67€ per determination. The results showed several advantages of the Alethia® Malaria, as it was easy to perform, minimal training requirement and 40 min run. Moreover, it includes an internal control to avoid false negatives. However, it also showed some limitations such as the need for a specific amplification and detection device, the detection of only Plasmodium spp. and a very high price.

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the diagnosis of imported malaria: a narrative review

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is a molecular method to detect malaria recently introduced in the market. LAMP is simple to perform and does not require advanced equipment and training thus satisfying the qualification as a point-of-care diagnostic screening test. In this narrative review, we focus on the role of LAMP for malaria diagnosis in non-endemic settings. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using the following search terms: 'Malaria LAMP' in combination with 'imported malaria' or 'travellers' malaria' or 'non-endemic setting' or 'non-endemic region' or 'malaria screening' or 'malaria diagnosis'. References of each article were also reviewed for possible studies or reports not identified in our search. Overall, 18 studies encompassing 6289 tested samples with 1663 confirmed malaria diagnoses were retrieved. Most of these studies (13/18, 72.2%) were conducted in Europe, and almost half were retrospective. Fourteen studies (77.8%) employed real-time or nested-polymerase chain reaction as the reference method for confirming malaria diagnosis. Sensitivity of LAMP ranged from 93.9 to 100% and specificity from 93.8 to 100% with a negative predictive value of 99.6%-100%. The rate of reported invalid results requiring repeat of the test varied from 0.01% to 5.7%, but they were solved in the majority of cases with a secondary analysis. In non-endemic countries the adoption of LAMP malaria assay as the screening test for malaria diagnosis seems to perform better than conventional methods. However, blood microscopy remains essential to either identify Plasmodium species and quantify parasitaemia and adequately managing malaria cases.

The value of lamp to rule out imported malaria diagnosis: a retrospective observational study in Milan, Italy

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of malaria in returning travellers could be a challenge in non-endemic settings. We aimed to assess the performance of LAMP in comparison with standard conventional diagnostic methods using real-time-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in case of discordant results.

METHODS

All travellers returning from malaria-endemic areas who presented to our Emergency Department (ED) from January 2017 to December 2020 with signs and symptoms suggestive for malaria were included. Blood microscopy was the reference diagnostic method applied at our laboratory with LAMP implemented as an additional method to aid in malaria diagnosis. PCR was employed only in case of between test's discordant results. Sensitivity and specificity of microscopy compared to LAMP were calculated with the confidence interval of 95%.

RESULTS

Four-hundred and eight patients (55.6% male, median age 42 years) were screened for malaria. The diagnosis was confirmed in 49 cases (12%): 44 cases (90%) caused by Plasmodium falciparum. Peripheral blood smear missed to identify three malaria cases, which tested positive with LAMP and PCR. One case of malaria caused by P. malariae in a naive tourist, one case by P. falciparum in a semi-immune pregnant women and one case by P. falciparum in a previously treated semi-immune patient. All the discordant cases were characterized by a very low parasitaemia. Microscopy when compared to LAMP showed a sensitivity of 93.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.1-98.7%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98.9-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our non-endemic setting LAMP was able to identify malaria cases with low-level parasitaemia otherwise missed by blood microscopy.

Malaria Screening Using Front-Line Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification

OBJECTIVES

We implemented front-line loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)-based malaria screening in our nonendemic multicenter health region to reduce reliance on microscopy without sacrificing diagnostic efficiency. We aimed to evaluate changes in test volumes, positivity rates, turnaround times, and approximate labor time savings resulting from implementation of LAMP-based malaria testing to assess the efficacy of the novel testing algorithm in our regional hub-and-spoke testing model.

METHODS

We reviewed data generated from institutional malaria testing between 2016 and 2019, having implemented LAMP in October 2018 as a front-line screening test for all malaria investigations from our hub facility and investigations from satellite facilities with negative rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and microscopy.

RESULTS

Blood film microscopy and RDT workloads decreased substantially in the year following LAMP implementation (by 90% and 46%, respectively,) despite similar numbers of patients tested and positivity rates for malaria compared with historical data. LAMP turnaround times (TATs) were comparable to historical TATs for RDTs, and TATs for RDTs and thick films did not increase with the change in workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

LAMP was successfully implemented in our multicenter health region malaria diagnostic algorithm, significantly reducing reliance on microscopic evaluations and RDT and providing substantial labor time savings without compromising TATs.

Performance and Application of Commercially Available Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) Kits in Malaria Endemic and Non-Endemic Settings

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is a sensitive molecular tool suitable for use as a near point-of-care test for the diagnosis of malaria. Recent meta-analyses have detailed high sensitivity and specificity of malaria LAMP when compared to microscopy, rapid diagnostic tests, and polymerase chain reaction in both endemic and non-endemic settings. Despite this, the use of malaria LAMP has primarily been limited to research settings to date. In this review, we aim to assess to what extent commercially available malaria LAMP kits have been applied in different settings, and to identify possible obstacles that may have hindered their use from being adopted further. In order to address this, we conducted a literature search in PubMed.gov using the search terms (((LAMP) OR (Loop-mediated isothermal amplification)) AND ((Malaria) OR (Plasmodium))). Focusing primarily on studies employing one of the commercially available kits, we then selected three key areas of LAMP application for further review: the performance and application of LAMP in malaria endemic settings including low transmission areas; LAMP for malaria screening during pregnancy; and malaria LAMP in returning travelers in non-endemic settings.