Detecting asymptomatic carriage of Plasmodium falciparum in southern Ghana: utility of molecular and serological diagnostic tools.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Antigens, Protozoan
/ genetics
Child
Diagnostic Tests, Routine
/ methods
Ghana
/ epidemiology
Humans
Malaria
Malaria, Falciparum
/ diagnosis
Middle Aged
Plasmodium falciparum
/ genetics
Polymerase Chain Reaction
/ methods
Protozoan Proteins
/ genetics
Sensitivity and Specificity
Young Adult
Asymptomatic
Bead-based multiplex
HRP2
Malaria
Microscopy
PET-PCR
RDT
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Feb 2022
19 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
11
08
2021
accepted:
06
02
2022
entrez:
20
2
2022
pubmed:
21
2
2022
medline:
23
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Asymptomatic malaria infections can serve as potential reservoirs for malaria transmission. The density of parasites contained in these infections range from microscopic to submicroscopic densities, making the accurate detection of asymptomatic parasite carriage highly dependent on the sensitivity of the tools used for the diagnosis. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivities of a variety of molecular and serological diagnostic tools at determining the prevalence of asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum parasite infections in two communities with varying malaria parasite prevalence. Whole blood was collected from 194 afebrile participants aged between 6 and 70 years old living in a high (Obom) and a low (Asutsuare) malaria transmission setting of Ghana. Thick and thin blood smears, HRP2 based malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and filter paper dried blood spots (DBS) were prepared from each blood sample. Genomic DNA was extracted from the remaining blood and used in Plasmodium specific photo-induced electron transfer polymerase chain reaction (PET-PCR) and Nested PCR, whilst the HRP2 antigen content of the DBS was estimated using a bead immunoassay. A comparison of malaria parasite prevalence as determined by each method was performed. Parasite prevalence in the high transmission site of Obom was estimated at 71.4%, 61.9%, 60%, 37.8% and 19.1% by Nested PCR, the HRP2 bead assay, PET-PCR, HRP2-RDT and microscopy respectively. Parasite prevalence in the low transmission site of Asutsuare was estimated at 50.1%, 11.2%, 5.6%, 0% and 2.2% by Nested PCR, the HRP2 bead assay, PET-PCR, RDT and microscopy, respectively. The diagnostic performance of Nested PCR, PET-PCR and the HRP2 bead assay was similar in Obom but in Asutsuare, Nested PCR had a significantly higher sensitivity than PET-PCR and the HRP2 bead assay, which had similar sensitivity. Nested PCR exhibited the highest sensitivity by identifying the highest prevalence of asymptomatic P. falciparum in both the high and low parasite prevalence settings. However, parasite prevalence estimated by the HRP2 bead assay and PET-PCR had the highest level of inter-rater agreement relative to all the other tools tested and have the advantage of requiring fewer processing steps relative to Nested PCR and producing quantitative results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Asymptomatic malaria infections can serve as potential reservoirs for malaria transmission. The density of parasites contained in these infections range from microscopic to submicroscopic densities, making the accurate detection of asymptomatic parasite carriage highly dependent on the sensitivity of the tools used for the diagnosis. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivities of a variety of molecular and serological diagnostic tools at determining the prevalence of asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum parasite infections in two communities with varying malaria parasite prevalence.
METHODS
METHODS
Whole blood was collected from 194 afebrile participants aged between 6 and 70 years old living in a high (Obom) and a low (Asutsuare) malaria transmission setting of Ghana. Thick and thin blood smears, HRP2 based malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and filter paper dried blood spots (DBS) were prepared from each blood sample. Genomic DNA was extracted from the remaining blood and used in Plasmodium specific photo-induced electron transfer polymerase chain reaction (PET-PCR) and Nested PCR, whilst the HRP2 antigen content of the DBS was estimated using a bead immunoassay. A comparison of malaria parasite prevalence as determined by each method was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Parasite prevalence in the high transmission site of Obom was estimated at 71.4%, 61.9%, 60%, 37.8% and 19.1% by Nested PCR, the HRP2 bead assay, PET-PCR, HRP2-RDT and microscopy respectively. Parasite prevalence in the low transmission site of Asutsuare was estimated at 50.1%, 11.2%, 5.6%, 0% and 2.2% by Nested PCR, the HRP2 bead assay, PET-PCR, RDT and microscopy, respectively. The diagnostic performance of Nested PCR, PET-PCR and the HRP2 bead assay was similar in Obom but in Asutsuare, Nested PCR had a significantly higher sensitivity than PET-PCR and the HRP2 bead assay, which had similar sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Nested PCR exhibited the highest sensitivity by identifying the highest prevalence of asymptomatic P. falciparum in both the high and low parasite prevalence settings. However, parasite prevalence estimated by the HRP2 bead assay and PET-PCR had the highest level of inter-rater agreement relative to all the other tools tested and have the advantage of requiring fewer processing steps relative to Nested PCR and producing quantitative results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35183178
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04078-w
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04078-w
pmc: PMC8858553
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antigens, Protozoan
0
Protozoan Proteins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Jul;59(1):115-23
pubmed: 9684638
Malar J. 2014 Jan 27;13:31
pubmed: 24467985
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2013 Jun;11(6):623-39
pubmed: 23750733
Malar J. 2018 Sep 17;17(1):333
pubmed: 30223852
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 3;12(8):e0182189
pubmed: 28771615
Nat Commun. 2012;3:1237
pubmed: 23212366
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56677
pubmed: 23437209
Malar J. 2010 Nov 08;9:317
pubmed: 21059211
Malar J. 2018 Sep 17;17(1):331
pubmed: 30223841
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Jan;36(1):203-6
pubmed: 9431947
Malar J. 2020 Sep 3;19(1):323
pubmed: 32883286
PLoS Comput Biol. 2007 Dec;3(12):e255
pubmed: 18166074
J Clin Microbiol. 1999 Oct;37(10):3260-4
pubmed: 10488189
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Aug 29;18(1):432
pubmed: 30157794
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 4;15(9):e0238749
pubmed: 32886699
Lancet Infect Dis. 2006 Sep;6(9):582-8
pubmed: 16931409
Travel Med Infect Dis. 2008 Jan-Mar;6(1-2):82-99
pubmed: 18342279
Lancet. 1994 Mar 5;343(8897):564-8
pubmed: 7906328
Malar J. 2018 Jun 8;17(1):228
pubmed: 29884184
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1998 Sep-Oct;92(5):527-31
pubmed: 9861370
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 13;12(2):e0172139
pubmed: 28192523
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e46197
pubmed: 23049979
Malar J. 2015 Mar 18;14:115
pubmed: 25889624
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 22;12(6):e0179178
pubmed: 28640824
Lancet. 1996 Jun 1;347(9014):1549
pubmed: 8684115
Malar J. 2019 Dec 2;18(1):387
pubmed: 31791354
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Jan-Feb;93(1):46
pubmed: 10492788
Malar J. 2017 Mar 6;16(1):105
pubmed: 28264689
J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Jul;55(7):2009-2017
pubmed: 28404673
Malar J. 2016 Jul 26;15(1):388
pubmed: 27456336
Malar J. 2020 Feb 10;19(1):64
pubmed: 32041620
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1997 Jan;56(1):44-8
pubmed: 9063360
Malar J. 2020 Jun 23;19(1):217
pubmed: 32576186
BMC Immunol. 2018 Nov 19;19(1):34
pubmed: 30453898
Malar J. 2019 Dec 26;18(1):443
pubmed: 31878947
Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2006 Dec;13(12):1307-13
pubmed: 17035513
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014 Dec;12(12):833-40
pubmed: 25329408
J Med Microbiol. 2013 Oct;62(Pt 10):1491-1505
pubmed: 24048274
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Apr;60(4):687-92
pubmed: 10348249
Nat Commun. 2019 Mar 29;10(1):1433
pubmed: 30926893
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 15;13(6):e0199172
pubmed: 29906275
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002 Jan;15(1):66-78
pubmed: 11781267
Malar J. 2014 Nov 26;13:462
pubmed: 25428550