WHO malaria nucleic acid amplification test external quality assessment scheme: results of distribution programmes one to three.
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Malaria
/ diagnosis
Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques
/ statistics & numerical data
Plasmodium
/ isolation & purification
Quality Assurance, Health Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Quality Control
Reproducibility of Results
World Health Organization
External quality assessment
Malaria
Molecular
Proficiency testing
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Mar 2020
30 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
13
08
2019
accepted:
23
03
2020
entrez:
2
4
2020
pubmed:
2
4
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends parasite-based diagnosis of malaria. In recent years, there has been surge in the use of various kinds of nucleic-acid amplification based tests (NAATs) for detection and identification of Plasmodium spp. to support clinical care in high-resource settings and clinical and epidemiological research worldwide. However, these tests are not without challenges, including lack (or limited use) of standards and lack of reproducibility, due in part to variation in protocols amongst laboratories. Therefore, there is a need for rigorous quality control, including a robust external quality assessment (EQA) scheme targeted towards malaria NAATs. To this effect, the WHO Global Malaria Programme worked with the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) Parasitology and with technical experts to launch a global NAAT EQA scheme in January 2017. Panels of NAAT EQA specimens containing five major species of human-infecting Plasmodium at various parasite concentrations and negative samples were created in lyophilized blood (LB) and dried blood spot (DBS) formats. Two distributions per year were sent, containing five LB and five DBS specimens. Samples were tested and validated by six expert referee laboratories prior to distribution. Between 37 and 45 laboratories participated in each distribution and submitted results using the online submission portal of UK NEQAS. Participants were scored based on their laboratory's stated capacity to identify Plasmodium species, and individual laboratory reports were sent which included performance comparison with anonymized peers. Analysis of the first three distributions revealed that the factors that most significantly affected performance were sample format (DBS vs LB), species and parasite density, while laboratory location and the reported methodology used (type of nucleic acid extraction, amplification, or DNA vs RNA target) did not significantly affect performance. Referee laboratories performed better than non-referee laboratories. Globally, malaria NAAT assays now inform a range of clinical, epidemiological and research investigations. EQA schemes offer a way for laboratories to assess and improve their performance, which is critical to safeguarding the reliability of data and diagnoses especially in situations where various NAAT methodologies and protocols are in use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends parasite-based diagnosis of malaria. In recent years, there has been surge in the use of various kinds of nucleic-acid amplification based tests (NAATs) for detection and identification of Plasmodium spp. to support clinical care in high-resource settings and clinical and epidemiological research worldwide. However, these tests are not without challenges, including lack (or limited use) of standards and lack of reproducibility, due in part to variation in protocols amongst laboratories. Therefore, there is a need for rigorous quality control, including a robust external quality assessment (EQA) scheme targeted towards malaria NAATs. To this effect, the WHO Global Malaria Programme worked with the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UK NEQAS) Parasitology and with technical experts to launch a global NAAT EQA scheme in January 2017.
METHODS
METHODS
Panels of NAAT EQA specimens containing five major species of human-infecting Plasmodium at various parasite concentrations and negative samples were created in lyophilized blood (LB) and dried blood spot (DBS) formats. Two distributions per year were sent, containing five LB and five DBS specimens. Samples were tested and validated by six expert referee laboratories prior to distribution. Between 37 and 45 laboratories participated in each distribution and submitted results using the online submission portal of UK NEQAS. Participants were scored based on their laboratory's stated capacity to identify Plasmodium species, and individual laboratory reports were sent which included performance comparison with anonymized peers.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Analysis of the first three distributions revealed that the factors that most significantly affected performance were sample format (DBS vs LB), species and parasite density, while laboratory location and the reported methodology used (type of nucleic acid extraction, amplification, or DNA vs RNA target) did not significantly affect performance. Referee laboratories performed better than non-referee laboratories.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Globally, malaria NAAT assays now inform a range of clinical, epidemiological and research investigations. EQA schemes offer a way for laboratories to assess and improve their performance, which is critical to safeguarding the reliability of data and diagnoses especially in situations where various NAAT methodologies and protocols are in use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32228615
doi: 10.1186/s12936-020-03200-0
pii: 10.1186/s12936-020-03200-0
pmc: PMC7106789
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
129Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Références
Malar J. 2008 Jul 24;7:139
pubmed: 18652656
Clin Chem. 2009 Apr;55(4):611-22
pubmed: 19246619
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1996 Sep-Oct;90(5):519-21
pubmed: 8944260
Clin Chem. 2006 Feb;52(2):303-6
pubmed: 16339303
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Mar;42(3):1214-9
pubmed: 15004078
Malar J. 2015 Jan 28;14:33
pubmed: 25627033
Lancet. 2018 May 12;391(10133):1916-1926
pubmed: 29703425
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Aug;45(8):2521-8
pubmed: 17567794
Pathol Res Pract. 2013 Apr;209(4):264-5
pubmed: 23510624
Lancet. 1989 Jun 17;1(8651):1343-6
pubmed: 2567370
Malar J. 2011 Feb 28;10:48
pubmed: 21352599
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Oct;37(10):3260-4
pubmed: 10488189
Malar J. 2013 Aug 08;12:277
pubmed: 23927553
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Dec 1;113(12):820-822
pubmed: 30576480
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2014 Aug;108(8):488-94
pubmed: 24907711
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Jun 1;66(12):1883-1891
pubmed: 29304258
Malar J. 2013 Nov 09;12:405
pubmed: 24206649
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Sep;52(9):3303-9
pubmed: 24989601
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Jan 08;9(1):e3413
pubmed: 25569135
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Mar;76(3):470-4
pubmed: 17360869
J Clin Pathol. 2003 Dec;56(12):927-32
pubmed: 14645352
J Clin Microbiol. 2004 Dec;42(12):5636-43
pubmed: 15583293
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Nov;89(5):824-39
pubmed: 24062484
Trends Parasitol. 2002 Sep;18(9):395-8
pubmed: 12377256
Methods Mol Biol. 2013;943:49-79
pubmed: 23104281
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012 Mar;86(3):383-94
pubmed: 22403305
J Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 15;200(10):1509-17
pubmed: 19848588
Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1993 Apr;58(2):283-92
pubmed: 8479452
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002 Dec;50(6):953-64
pubmed: 12461017
PLoS One. 2014 May 16;9(5):e97398
pubmed: 24838112
Mol Biochem Parasitol. 1993 Oct;61(2):315-20
pubmed: 8264734
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Feb 15;27(1):23-29
pubmed: 28392723