AI Article Synopsis

  • Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for Plasmodium falciparum, while useful for identifying malaria in low transmission areas, struggle with sensitivity for low-density infections and can't detect certain strains or other malaria species.
  • In a study of over 3,200 participants in Zambia, RDTs identified only 42 positive cases, whereas nested PCR detected 57 positives, highlighting RDTs' low sensitivity of just 17% compared to PCR results.
  • Despite high specificity (>99%), the study suggests that missed detections in RDTs were more about low parasite levels than issues with the pfhrp2 gene itself, complicating malaria diagnostics.

Article Abstract

Background: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) antigen are used to identify individuals with Plasmodium falciparum infection even in low transmission settings seeking to achieve elimination. However, these RDTs lack sensitivity to detect low-density infections, produce false negatives for P. falciparum strains lacking pfhrp2 gene and do not detect species other than P. falciparum.

Methods: Results of a PfHRP2-based RDT and Plasmodium nested PCR were compared in a region of declining malaria transmission in southern Zambia using samples from community-based, cross-sectional surveys from 2008 to 2012. Participants were tested with a PfHRP2-based RDT and a finger prick blood sample was spotted onto filter paper for PCR analysis and used to prepare blood smears for microscopy. Species-specific, real-time, quantitative PCR (q-PCR) was performed on samples that tested positive either by microscopy, RDT or nested PCR.

Results: Of 3,292 total participants enrolled, 12 (0.4%) tested positive by microscopy and 42 (1.3%) by RDT. Of 3,213 (98%) samples tested by nested PCR, 57 (1.8%) were positive, resulting in 87 participants positive by at least one of the three tests. Of these, 61 tested positive for P. falciparum by q-PCR with copy numbers ≤ 2 x 10(3) copies/μL, 5 were positive for both P. falciparum and Plasmodium malariae and 2 were positive for P. malariae alone. RDT detected 32 (53%) of P. falciparum positives, failing to detect three of the dual infections with P. malariae. Among 2,975 participants enrolled during a low transmission period between 2009 and 2012, sensitivity of the PfHRP2-based RDT compared to nested PCR was only 17%, with specificity of >99%. The pfhrp gene was detected in 80% of P. falciparum positives; however, comparison of copy number between RDT negative and RDT positive samples suggested that RDT negatives resulted from low parasitaemia and not pfhrp2 gene deletion.

Conclusions: Low-density P. falciparum infections not identified by currently used PfHRP2-based RDTs and the inability to detect non-falciparum malaria will hinder progress to further reduce malaria in low transmission settings of Zambia. More sensitive and specific diagnostic tests will likely be necessary to identify parasite reservoirs and achieve malaria elimination.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340619PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12936-015-0544-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

low transmission
12
pfhrp2-based rdt
12
nested pcr
12
tested positive
12
rdt
9
rapid diagnostic
8
malaria low
8
southern zambia
8
diagnostic tests
8
transmission settings
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!