Algorithms for sequential interpretation of a malaria rapid diagnostic test detecting two different targets of Plasmodium species to improve diagnostic accuracy in a rural setting (Nanoro, Burkina Faso).
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
09
08
2018
accepted:
21
01
2019
entrez:
14
2
2019
pubmed:
14
2
2019
medline:
5
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) have limitations due to the persistence of histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) antigen after treatment and low sensitivity of Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) based RDTs. To improve the diagnosis of malaria in febrile children, two diagnostic algorithms, based on sequential interpretation of a malaria rapid diagnostic test detecting two different targets of Plasmodium species and followed by expert microscopy, were evaluated. Two diagnostic algorithms were evaluated using 407 blood samples collected between April and October 2016 from febrile children and the diagnostic accuracy of both algorithms was determined. Algorithm 1: The result of line T1-HRP2 were read first; if negative, malaria infection was considered to be absent. If positive, confirmation was done with the line T2-pLDH. If T2-pLDH test was negative, the malaria diagnosis was considered as "inconclusive" and microscopy was performed; Algorithm 2: The result of line T2-pLDH were read first; if positive, malaria infection was considered to be present. If negative, confirmation was done with the line T1-HRP2. If T1-HRP2 was positive the malaria diagnosis was considered as "inconclusive" and microscopy was performed. In absence of malaria microscopy, a malaria infection was ruled out in children with an inconclusive diagnostic test result when previous antimalarial treatment was reported. For single interpretation, the sensitivity of PfHRP2 was 98.4% and the specificity was 74.2%, and for the pLDH test the sensitivity was 89.3% and the specificity was 98.8%. Malaria was accurately diagnosed using both algorithms in 84.5% children. The algorithms with the two-line malaria RDT classified the test results into two groups: conclusive and inconclusive results. The diagnostic accuracy for conclusive results was 98.3% using diagnostic algorithm 1 and 98.6% using algorithm 2. The sensitivity and specificity for the conclusive results were 98.2% and 98.4% for algorithm 1, and 98.6% and 98.4% for algorithm 2, respectively. There were 63 (15.5%) children who had an "inconclusive" result for whom expert microscopy was needed. In children with inconclusive results (PfHRP2+/pLDH- only) previous antimalarial treatment was reported in 16 children with malaria negative microscopy (16/40; 40%) and 1 child with malaria positive microscopy (1/23; 4.3%). The strategy of sequential interpretation of two-line malaria RDT can improve the diagnosis of malaria. However, some cases will still require confirmative testing with microscopy or additional investigations on previous antimalarial treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) have limitations due to the persistence of histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) antigen after treatment and low sensitivity of Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) based RDTs. To improve the diagnosis of malaria in febrile children, two diagnostic algorithms, based on sequential interpretation of a malaria rapid diagnostic test detecting two different targets of Plasmodium species and followed by expert microscopy, were evaluated.
METHODS
Two diagnostic algorithms were evaluated using 407 blood samples collected between April and October 2016 from febrile children and the diagnostic accuracy of both algorithms was determined. Algorithm 1: The result of line T1-HRP2 were read first; if negative, malaria infection was considered to be absent. If positive, confirmation was done with the line T2-pLDH. If T2-pLDH test was negative, the malaria diagnosis was considered as "inconclusive" and microscopy was performed; Algorithm 2: The result of line T2-pLDH were read first; if positive, malaria infection was considered to be present. If negative, confirmation was done with the line T1-HRP2. If T1-HRP2 was positive the malaria diagnosis was considered as "inconclusive" and microscopy was performed. In absence of malaria microscopy, a malaria infection was ruled out in children with an inconclusive diagnostic test result when previous antimalarial treatment was reported.
RESULTS
For single interpretation, the sensitivity of PfHRP2 was 98.4% and the specificity was 74.2%, and for the pLDH test the sensitivity was 89.3% and the specificity was 98.8%. Malaria was accurately diagnosed using both algorithms in 84.5% children. The algorithms with the two-line malaria RDT classified the test results into two groups: conclusive and inconclusive results. The diagnostic accuracy for conclusive results was 98.3% using diagnostic algorithm 1 and 98.6% using algorithm 2. The sensitivity and specificity for the conclusive results were 98.2% and 98.4% for algorithm 1, and 98.6% and 98.4% for algorithm 2, respectively. There were 63 (15.5%) children who had an "inconclusive" result for whom expert microscopy was needed. In children with inconclusive results (PfHRP2+/pLDH- only) previous antimalarial treatment was reported in 16 children with malaria negative microscopy (16/40; 40%) and 1 child with malaria positive microscopy (1/23; 4.3%).
CONCLUSION
The strategy of sequential interpretation of two-line malaria RDT can improve the diagnosis of malaria. However, some cases will still require confirmative testing with microscopy or additional investigations on previous antimalarial treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30759130
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211801
pii: PONE-D-18-23497
pmc: PMC6373946
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Protozoan
0
HRP-2 antigen, Plasmodium falciparum
0
Protozoan Proteins
0
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0211801Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Malar J. 2013 Jan 24;12:34
pubmed: 23347727
Malar J. 2015 Mar 18;14:115
pubmed: 25889624
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012 Feb;86(2):194-8
pubmed: 22302847
Malar J. 2014 Feb 01;13:43
pubmed: 24484540
J Clin Microbiol. 2017 May;55(5):1540-1549
pubmed: 28275077
Malar J. 2010 Jul 12;9:200
pubmed: 20624312
Malar J. 2014 Jan 13;13:20
pubmed: 24418119
Malar J. 2014 Jan 29;13:34
pubmed: 24472178
Clin Infect Dis. 2011 May;52(9):1100-7
pubmed: 21467015
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Jun;54(11):1637-41
pubmed: 22550113
Lancet Infect Dis. 2006 Sep;6(9):582-8
pubmed: 16931409
Malar J. 2014 Mar 22;13:113
pubmed: 24655351
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 06;6(4):e18419
pubmed: 21494674
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Apr;51(4):1118-23
pubmed: 23345297
Trop Med Int Health. 2009 May;14(5):491-8
pubmed: 19222821
Malar J. 2018 Jun 8;17(1):228
pubmed: 29884184
Malar J. 2017 Jul 20;16(1):294
pubmed: 28728558
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 06;(7):CD008122
pubmed: 21735422