Diagnostic performance and comparison of ultrasensitive and conventional rapid diagnostic test, thick blood smear and quantitative PCR for detection of low-density Plasmodium falciparum infections during a controlled human malaria infection study in Equatorial Guinea.
Controlled human malaria infection
Low parasite density infections
Malaria
Malaria pre-exposure
Rapid diagnostic test
Thick blood smear
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Mar 2022
24 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
08
11
2021
accepted:
23
02
2022
entrez:
25
3
2022
pubmed:
26
3
2022
medline:
29
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Progress towards malaria elimination has stagnated, partly because infections persisting at low parasite densities comprise a large reservoir contributing to ongoing malaria transmission and are difficult to detect. This study compared the performance of an ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test (uRDT) designed to detect low density infections to a conventional RDT (cRDT), expert microscopy using Giemsa-stained thick blood smears (TBS), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) during a controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) study conducted in malaria exposed adults (NCT03590340). Blood samples were collected from healthy Equatoguineans aged 18-35 years beginning on day 8 after CHMI with 3.2 × 10 279 samples were collected from 24 participants; 123 were positive by qPCR. TBS detected 24/123 (19.5% sensitivity [95% CI 13.1-27.8%]), uRDT 21/123 (17.1% sensitivity [95% CI 11.1-25.1%]), cRDT 10/123 (8.1% sensitivity [95% CI 4.2-14.8%]); all were 100% specific and did not detect any positive samples not detected by qPCR. TBS and uRDT were more sensitive than cRDT (TBS vs. cRDT p = 0.015; uRDT vs. cRDT p = 0.053), detecting parasitaemias as low as 3.7 parasites/µL (p/µL) (TBS and uRDT) compared to 5.6 p/µL (cRDT) based on TBS density measurements. TBS, uRDT and cRDT did not detect any of the 70/123 samples positive by qPCR below 5.86 p/µL, the qPCR density corresponding to 3.7 p/µL by TBS. The median prepatent periods in days (ranges) were 14.5 (10-20), 18.0 (15-28), 18.0 (15-20) and 18.0 (16-24) for qPCR, TBS, uRDT and cRDT, respectively; qPCR detected parasitaemia significantly earlier (3.5 days) than the other tests. TBS and uRDT had similar sensitivities, both were more sensitive than cRDT, and neither matched qPCR for detecting low density parasitaemia. uRDT could be considered an alternative to TBS in selected applications, such as CHMI or field diagnosis, where qualitative, dichotomous results for malaria infection might be sufficient.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Progress towards malaria elimination has stagnated, partly because infections persisting at low parasite densities comprise a large reservoir contributing to ongoing malaria transmission and are difficult to detect. This study compared the performance of an ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test (uRDT) designed to detect low density infections to a conventional RDT (cRDT), expert microscopy using Giemsa-stained thick blood smears (TBS), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) during a controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) study conducted in malaria exposed adults (NCT03590340).
METHODS
METHODS
Blood samples were collected from healthy Equatoguineans aged 18-35 years beginning on day 8 after CHMI with 3.2 × 10
RESULTS
RESULTS
279 samples were collected from 24 participants; 123 were positive by qPCR. TBS detected 24/123 (19.5% sensitivity [95% CI 13.1-27.8%]), uRDT 21/123 (17.1% sensitivity [95% CI 11.1-25.1%]), cRDT 10/123 (8.1% sensitivity [95% CI 4.2-14.8%]); all were 100% specific and did not detect any positive samples not detected by qPCR. TBS and uRDT were more sensitive than cRDT (TBS vs. cRDT p = 0.015; uRDT vs. cRDT p = 0.053), detecting parasitaemias as low as 3.7 parasites/µL (p/µL) (TBS and uRDT) compared to 5.6 p/µL (cRDT) based on TBS density measurements. TBS, uRDT and cRDT did not detect any of the 70/123 samples positive by qPCR below 5.86 p/µL, the qPCR density corresponding to 3.7 p/µL by TBS. The median prepatent periods in days (ranges) were 14.5 (10-20), 18.0 (15-28), 18.0 (15-20) and 18.0 (16-24) for qPCR, TBS, uRDT and cRDT, respectively; qPCR detected parasitaemia significantly earlier (3.5 days) than the other tests.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TBS and uRDT had similar sensitivities, both were more sensitive than cRDT, and neither matched qPCR for detecting low density parasitaemia. uRDT could be considered an alternative to TBS in selected applications, such as CHMI or field diagnosis, where qualitative, dichotomous results for malaria infection might be sufficient.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35331251
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04103-y
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04103-y
pmc: PMC8943516
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03590340']
Types de publication
Clinical Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
99Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Oct;18(10):1108-1116
pubmed: 30170986
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 Nov;97(5):1540-1550
pubmed: 28820709
Malar J. 2015 Dec 23;14:520
pubmed: 26701778
EBioMedicine. 2017 Nov;25:66-72
pubmed: 29050948
JCI Insight. 2017 Jan 12;2(1):e89154
pubmed: 28097230
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 10;70(12):2544-2552
pubmed: 31402382
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Jun;17(6):636-644
pubmed: 28363637
Nat Commun. 2021 May 4;12(1):2518
pubmed: 33947856
Malar J. 2018 Mar 17;17(1):118
pubmed: 29549888
Malar J. 2021 Jan 22;20(1):58
pubmed: 33482835
Malar J. 2019 Jan 15;18(1):9
pubmed: 30646918
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013 Jan;88(1):5-13
pubmed: 23149582
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Sep;103(3):947-954
pubmed: 32458790
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 27;10(3):e0121763
pubmed: 25816298
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Jan;98(1):308-318
pubmed: 29141739
Science. 2013 Sep 20;341(6152):1359-65
pubmed: 23929949
Malar J. 2006 Nov 08;5:104
pubmed: 17092336
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Feb;102(2):307-309
pubmed: 31820711
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2022 Feb 7;:
pubmed: 35130487
Nature. 2017 Feb 23;542(7642):445-449
pubmed: 28199305
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Mar 7;114(10):2711-2716
pubmed: 28223498
Malar J. 2013 Nov 09;12:405
pubmed: 24206649
Malar J. 2016 Aug 05;15(1):398
pubmed: 27495296
J Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 14;217(5):693-702
pubmed: 29216395
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 29;8(8):e71539
pubmed: 24009663
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 31;71(11):2849-2857
pubmed: 31782768
Malar J. 2021 Mar 2;20(1):125
pubmed: 33653356
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004 Mar;2(3):231-40
pubmed: 15083158
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 13;12(2):e0172139
pubmed: 28192523
Int J Parasitol. 2002 Oct;32(11):1323-44
pubmed: 12350369
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Aug;99(2):338-349
pubmed: 29943719
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 19;13(6):e0199392
pubmed: 29920562
Bull World Health Organ. 1988;66(5):621-6
pubmed: 2463112
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999 Jan-Feb;93(1):50-3
pubmed: 10492790
J Biomed Inform. 2014 Apr;48:193-204
pubmed: 24582925
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012 Feb;86(2):194-8
pubmed: 22302847
JCI Insight. 2021 Sep 8;6(17):
pubmed: 34264864
PLoS Biol. 2016 Mar 02;14(3):e1002380
pubmed: 26934361
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011 Nov;17(11):1624-31
pubmed: 21910780
J Clin Microbiol. 2017 Jul;55(7):2009-2017
pubmed: 28404673
Malar J. 2018 Sep 17;17(1):333
pubmed: 30223852
Vaccine. 2012 Aug 3;30(36):5302-4
pubmed: 22659449
Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 16;6:39183
pubmed: 27982132
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Jul 26;56(8):
pubmed: 29898998
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45542
pubmed: 23029082
Vaccine. 2015 Dec 22;33(52):7452-61
pubmed: 26469720
Malar J. 2015 Jan 28;14:25
pubmed: 25888818
Trends Parasitol. 2012 Nov;28(11):515-21
pubmed: 23041118
Malar J. 2020 Dec 7;19(1):451
pubmed: 33287822
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2021 Jan;104(1):283-293
pubmed: 33205741
Nature. 2006 Nov 23;444 Suppl 1:73-9
pubmed: 17159896
Malar J. 2015 Mar 18;14:117
pubmed: 25889522
Nature. 2015 Dec 3;528(7580):S86-93
pubmed: 26633770
Malar J. 2015 Jan 28;14:33
pubmed: 25627033
Malar J. 2018 Jan 22;17(1):44
pubmed: 29357890
Trends Parasitol. 2014 Apr;30(4):183-90
pubmed: 24642035
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Mar;100(3):556-565
pubmed: 30675854
Trends Parasitol. 2020 Feb;36(2):112-126
pubmed: 31848119
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Aug 26;57(9):
pubmed: 31270184
PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e20179
pubmed: 21629651
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014 Dec;12(12):833-40
pubmed: 25329408
Nat Med. 2016 Jun;22(6):614-23
pubmed: 27158907
Malar J. 2021 Jun 3;20(1):245
pubmed: 34082776
Nature. 2015 Dec 3;528(7580):S94-101
pubmed: 26633771
Nat Commun. 2019 Mar 29;10(1):1433
pubmed: 30926893
Malar J. 2021 Jul 20;20(1):322
pubmed: 34284778
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Feb;98(2):508-515
pubmed: 29260650
Malar J. 2020 Mar 2;19(1):99
pubmed: 32122352
Malar J. 2020 Jan 16;19(1):28
pubmed: 31948448
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Aug;18(8):826-827
pubmed: 30064667
Malar J. 2013 Jul 01;12:221
pubmed: 23815811
Front Microbiol. 2014 Dec 12;5:686
pubmed: 25566206
J Immunol. 2017 Jul 1;199(1):107-118
pubmed: 28576979
Malar J. 2019 Apr 30;18(1):154
pubmed: 31039781
J Infect Dis. 2019 Nov 6;220(12):1962-1966
pubmed: 31419294
J Infect Dis. 2002 Aug 15;186(4):540-6
pubmed: 12195382