Performance Evaluation of Malaria Pf/Pv Combo Test Kit at Highly Malaria-Endemic Area, Southern Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Diagnostic performance of PfHRP2/pLDH malaria rapid diagnostic tests in elimination setting, northwest Ethiopia

Accurate diagnosis of malaria is vital for the effectiveness of parasite clearance interventions in elimination settings. Thus, evaluating the diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) used in malaria parasite clearance interventions in elimination settings is essential. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests recently used in detecting malaria parasites in northwest Ethiopia. A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021 comparing PfHRP2/pLDH CareStart malaria RDTs with light microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Blood samples were collected from 310 febrile patients who attended the outpatient department and examined using CareStart RDTs, light microscopy, and PCR. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA/SE version 17.0. The sensitivity of PfHRP2/pLDH CareStart malaria RDTs, regardless of species, was 81.0% [95% CI, 75.3, 86.7] and 75.8% [95% CI, 69.6, 82.0] compared to light microscopy and PCR, while the specificity was 96.8% [95% CI, 93.7, 99.9] and 93.2% [95% CI, 88.6, 97.8], respectively. The false-negative rate of CareStart malaria RDTs in comparison with light microscopy and PCR was 19.0% and 24.2%, respectively. The level of agreement beyond chance between tests was substantial, RDT versus microscopy was 75.0% and RDT versus PCR was 65.1%. The diagnostic performance of PfHRP2/pLDH CareStart RDTs in detecting malaria parasites among febrile patients in the study area was below the recommended WHO standard. The limited diagnostic performance of RDTs in the malaria elimination area undoubtedly affects the impact of malaria parasite clearance interventions. Therefore, parasite clearance intervention like targeted mass drug administration with antimalarial drugs is recommended to back up the limited diagnostic performance of the RDT or replace the existing malaria RDTs with more sensitive, field-deployable, and affordable diagnostic tests.

Field evaluation of the novel One Step Malaria Pf and Pf/Pv rapid diagnostic tests and the proportion of HRP-2 gene deletion identified on samples collected in the Pwani region, Tanzania

Background

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) have played an important role in the early detection of clinical malaria in an endemic area. While several mRDTs are currently on the market, the availability of mRDTs with high sensitivity and specificity will merit the fight against malaria. We evaluated the field performance of a novel One Step Malaria (P.f/P.v) Tri-line and One Step Malaria (P.f) rapid test kits in Pwani, Tanzania.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study conducted in Bagamoyo and Kibiti districts in Tanzania, symptomatic patients were tested using the SD BIOLINE, One Step Malaria (P.f/P.v) Tri-line and One Step Malaria (P.f) rapid test kits, microscope, and quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR). An additional qPCR assay was carried out to detect Histidine-Rich Protein 2 (HRP-2) gene deletion on mRDT negative but microscope and qPCR positive samples. Microscope results confirmed by qPCR were used for analysis, where qPCR was used as a reference method.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of One Step P.f/P.v Tri-line mRDTs were 96.0% (CI 93.5-97.7%) and 98.3% (CI 96.8-99.2%), respectively. One Step P.f mRDT had sensitivity and specificity of 95.2% (CI 92.5-97.1%) and 97.9% (CI 96.3-99.0%) respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 97.6% (CI 95.4-98.7%) and negative predictive value (NPV) was 96.2% (CI 95.5-98.3%) for the One Step P.f/P.v Tri-line mRDTs respectively, while One Step P.f mRDT had positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.0% (CI 94.8-98.3%) and 96.7 (CI 94.9-97.9%) respectively. 9.8% (CI 7.84-11.76) of all samples tested and reported to be malaria-negative by mRDT had HRP-2 gene deletion.

Conclusion

One Step Malaria P.f/P.v Tri-line and One Step Malaria P.f rapid test kits have similar sensitivity and specificity as the standard mRDT that is currently in the market, demonstrating the potential to contribute in the fight against malaria in endemic settings. However, the identified malaria parasites population with HRP-2 gene deletion pose a threat to the current mRDT usability in the field and warrants further investigations.

Investigation of Plasmodium falciparum pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions and performance of a rapid diagnostic test for identifying asymptomatic malaria infection in northern Ethiopia, 2015

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used for malaria diagnosis of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. Although RDTs are a reliable and practical diagnostic tool, the sensitivity of histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2)-based RDTs can be reduced if pfhrp2 or pfhrp3 (pfhrp2/3) gene deletions exist in the Plasmodium falciparum parasite population. This study evaluated dried blood spot (DBS) samples collected from a national household survey to investigate the presence of pfhrp2/3 deletions and the performance of the RDT used in the cross-sectional survey in a low transmission setting.

METHODS

The 2015 Ethiopia Malaria Indicator Survey tested household members by RDT and collected DBS samples. DBS (n = 2648) from three regions in northern Ethiopia were tested by multiplex bead-based antigen detection assay after completion of the survey. The multiplex assay detected pan-Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), pAldolase, and HRP2 antigens in samples. Samples suspected for pfhrp2/3 gene deletions (pLDH and/or pAldolase positive but low or absent HRP2) were further investigated by molecular assays for gene deletions. Antigen results were also compared to each individual's RDT results. Dose-response logistic regression models were fit to estimate RDT level of detection (LOD) antigen concentrations at which 50, 75, 90, and 95% of the RDTs returned a positive result during this survey.

RESULTS

Out of 2,648 samples assayed, 29 were positive for pLDH or pAldolase antigens but low or absent for HRP2 signal, and 15 of these samples (51.7%) were successfully genotyped for pfhrp2/3. Of these 15 P. falciparum infections, eight showed single deletions in pfhrp3, one showed a single pfhrp2 deletion, and six were pfhrp2/3 double-deletions. Six pfhrp2 deletions were observed in Tigray and one in Amhara. Twenty-five were positive for HRP2 by the survey RDT while the more sensitive bead assay detected 30 HRP2-positive samples. A lower concentration of HRP2 antigen generated a positive test result by RDT compared to pLDH (95% LOD: 16.9 ng/mL vs. 319.2 ng/mL, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of dual pfhrp2/3 gene deletions in the Tigray and Amhara regions of Ethiopia in 2015. As the prevalence of malaria was very low (< 2%), it is difficult to make strong conclusions on RDT performance, but these results challenge the utility of biomarkers in household surveys in very low transmission settings.

Performance of rapid diagnostic tests, microscopy, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and PCR for malaria diagnosis in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Rapid accurate diagnosis followed by effective treatment is very important for malaria control. Light microscopy remains the “golden standard” method for malaria diagnosis. Diagnostic test method must have sufficient level of accuracy for detecting malaria parasites. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), microscopy, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the malaria diagnosis in Ethiopia.

Methods

Data bases such as PubMed, PubMed central, Science direct databases, Google scholar, and Scopus were searched from September to October, 2020 for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs, microscopy, LAMP and PCR methods for malaria diagnosis.

Results

A total of 29 studies published between 2001 and 2020 were analysed using review manager, Midas (Stata) and Meta-disc. The sensitivity and specificity of studies comparing RDT with microscopy varies from 79%–100% to 80%–100%, respectively. The sensitivity of LAMP (731 tests) was 100% and its specificity was varies from 85 to 99% when compared with microscopy and PCR. Considerable heterogeneity was observed between studies included in this meta-analysis. Meta-regression showed that blinding status and target antigens were the major sources of heterogeneity (P < 0.05). RDT had an excellent diagnostic accuracy (Area under the ROC Curve = 0.99) when compared with microscopy. Its specificity was quite good (93%–100%) except for one outlier (28%), but lower “sensitivity” was observed when PCR is a reference test. This indicates RDT had a good diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.83). Microscopy showed a very good diagnostic accuracy when compared with PCR.

Conclusions

The present study showed that microscopy and RDTs had high efficiency for diagnosing febrile malaria patients. The diagnostic accuracy of RDT was excellent when compared with microscopy. This indicates RDTs have acceptable sensitivities and specificities to be used in resource poor settings as an alternative for microscopy. In this study, LAMP showed an excellent sensitivities and specificities. Furthermore, the need of minimum equipment and relatively short time for obtaining results can made LAMP one of the best alternatives especially for accurate diagnosis of asymptomatic malaria.

Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests: Literary Review and Recommendation for a Quality Assurance, Quality Control Algorithm

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have had an enormous global impact which contributed to the World Health Organization paradigm shift from empiric treatment to obtaining a parasitological diagnosis prior to treatment. Microscopy, the classic standard, requires significant expertise, equipment, electricity, and reagents. Alternatively, RDT’s lower complexity allows utilization in austere environments while achieving similar sensitivities and specificities. Worldwide, there are over 200 different RDT brands that utilize three antigens: Plasmodium histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP-2), Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH), and Plasmodium aldolase (pALDO). pfHRP-2 is produced exclusively by Plasmodium falciparum and is very Pf sensitive, but an alternative antigen or antigen combination is required for regions like Asia with significant Plasmodium vivax prevalence. RDT sensitivity also decreases with low parasitemia (<100 parasites/uL), genetic variability, and prozone effect. Thus, proper RDT selection and understanding of test limitations are essential. The Center for Disease Control recommends confirming RDT results by microscopy, but this is challenging, due to the utilization of clinical laboratory standards, like the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the Clinical Lab Improvement Act (CLIA), and limited recourses. Our focus is to provide quality assurance and quality control strategies for resource-constrained environments and provide education on RDT limitations.