Performance of antigen detection for HRP2-based malaria rapid diagnostic tests in community surveys: Tanzania, July-November 2017.
Histidine-rich protein 2
Limit of detection Plasmodium falciparum
Malaria
Rapid diagnostic tests
Tanzania
Journal
Malaria journal
ISSN: 1475-2875
Titre abrégé: Malar J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101139802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2022
01 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
12
07
2022
accepted:
12
11
2022
entrez:
2
12
2022
pubmed:
3
12
2022
medline:
6
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) based on the detection of the Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) antigen are widely used for detection of active infection with this parasite and are the only practical malaria diagnostic test in some endemic settings. External validation of RDT results from field surveys can confirm appropriate RDT performance. A community-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between July and November 2017 enrolling participants of all ages in households from 15 villages in four border regions of Tanzania: Geita, Kigoma, Mtwara and Ruvuma. All participants had an RDT performed in the field and provided a blood sample for later laboratory multiplex antigen detection of HRP2. In assessing the continuous HRP2 levels in participant blood versus RDT result, dose-response logistic regression provided quantitative estimates for HRP2 limit of detection (LOD). From the 15 study villages, 6941 persons were enrolled that had a RDT at time of enrollment and provided a DBS for later laboratory antigen detection. RDT positive prevalence for the HRP2 band by village ranged from 20.0 to 43.6%, but the magnitude of this prevalence did not have an effect on the estimated LOD of RDTs utilized in different villages. Overall, HRP2 single-target tests had a lower LOD at the 95% probability of positive RDT (4.3 ng/mL; 95% CI 3.4-5.4) when compared to pLDH/HRP2 dual target tests (5.4 ng/mL; 4.5-6.3), though this difference was not significant. With the exception of one village, all other 14 villages (93.3%) showed RDT LOD estimates at 90% probability of positive RDT between 0.5 and 12.0 ng/mL. Both HRP2-only and pLDH/HRP2 combo RDTs utilized in a 2017 Tanzania cross-sectional survey of border regions generally performed well, and reliably detected HRP2 antigen in the low ng/mL range. Though single target tests had lower levels of HRP2 detection, both tests were within similar ranges among the 15 villages. Comparison of quantitative HRP2 detection limits among study sites can help interpret RDT testing results when generating population prevalence estimates for malaria infection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) based on the detection of the Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) antigen are widely used for detection of active infection with this parasite and are the only practical malaria diagnostic test in some endemic settings. External validation of RDT results from field surveys can confirm appropriate RDT performance.
METHODS
METHODS
A community-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between July and November 2017 enrolling participants of all ages in households from 15 villages in four border regions of Tanzania: Geita, Kigoma, Mtwara and Ruvuma. All participants had an RDT performed in the field and provided a blood sample for later laboratory multiplex antigen detection of HRP2. In assessing the continuous HRP2 levels in participant blood versus RDT result, dose-response logistic regression provided quantitative estimates for HRP2 limit of detection (LOD).
RESULTS
RESULTS
From the 15 study villages, 6941 persons were enrolled that had a RDT at time of enrollment and provided a DBS for later laboratory antigen detection. RDT positive prevalence for the HRP2 band by village ranged from 20.0 to 43.6%, but the magnitude of this prevalence did not have an effect on the estimated LOD of RDTs utilized in different villages. Overall, HRP2 single-target tests had a lower LOD at the 95% probability of positive RDT (4.3 ng/mL; 95% CI 3.4-5.4) when compared to pLDH/HRP2 dual target tests (5.4 ng/mL; 4.5-6.3), though this difference was not significant. With the exception of one village, all other 14 villages (93.3%) showed RDT LOD estimates at 90% probability of positive RDT between 0.5 and 12.0 ng/mL.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Both HRP2-only and pLDH/HRP2 combo RDTs utilized in a 2017 Tanzania cross-sectional survey of border regions generally performed well, and reliably detected HRP2 antigen in the low ng/mL range. Though single target tests had lower levels of HRP2 detection, both tests were within similar ranges among the 15 villages. Comparison of quantitative HRP2 detection limits among study sites can help interpret RDT testing results when generating population prevalence estimates for malaria infection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36457087
doi: 10.1186/s12936-022-04383-4
pii: 10.1186/s12936-022-04383-4
pmc: PMC9714097
doi:
Substances chimiques
Histidine
4QD397987E
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
361Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : African Academy of Sciences
ID : 107740/Z/15/Z
Informations de copyright
© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
Malar J. 2017 Mar 24;16(1):128
pubmed: 28340585
Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Aug;121:92-97
pubmed: 35504551
J Infect Dis. 2019 Jan 9;219(3):437-447
pubmed: 30202972
J Infect Dis. 2015 Apr 1;211(7):1128-33
pubmed: 25344520
Malar J. 2020 Nov 4;19(1):391
pubmed: 33148255
Malar J. 2017 Nov 7;16(1):451
pubmed: 29115966
Malar J. 2022 Mar 17;21(1):92
pubmed: 35300707
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 18;17(1):470
pubmed: 28521798
Malar J. 2018 Dec 14;17(1):468
pubmed: 30547795
Malar J. 2022 Apr 19;21(1):126
pubmed: 35439987
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Feb 27;57(3):
pubmed: 30626660
J Infect Dis. 2019 Apr 16;219(9):1490-1498
pubmed: 30476111
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 May;98(5):1389-1396
pubmed: 29557342
J Infect Dis. 2020 Feb 18;221(5):786-795
pubmed: 31630194
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 13;12(2):e0172139
pubmed: 28192523
Malar J. 2022 Jan 6;21(1):9
pubmed: 34986840
Malar J. 2018 Dec 5;17(1):452
pubmed: 30518365
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Jan 2;57(1):
pubmed: 30404944
Malar J. 2022 Mar 4;21(1):70
pubmed: 35246151
Malar J. 2019 Dec 2;18(1):387
pubmed: 31791354
Malar J. 2022 Apr 2;21(1):111
pubmed: 35366883
Malar J. 2020 May 8;19(1):177
pubmed: 32384923
Malar J. 2011 Jun 26;10:176
pubmed: 21703016
J Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 14;217(5):685-692
pubmed: 29220497
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2021 Jun 16;34(3):e0025020
pubmed: 34043447
Trends Parasitol. 2020 Feb;36(2):112-126
pubmed: 31848119
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Aug 26;57(9):
pubmed: 31270184