Dataset Information

Assessment of the prozone effect in malaria rapid diagnostic tests.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The prozone effect (or high doses-hook phenomenon) consists of false-negative or false-low results in immunological tests, due to an excess of either antigens or antibodies. Although frequently cited as a cause of false-negative results in malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), especially at high parasite densities of Plasmodium falciparum, it has been poorly documented. In this study, a panel of malaria RDTs was challenged with clinical samples with P. falciparum hyperparasitaemia (> 5% infected red blood cells).

Methods

Twenty-two RDT brands were tested with seven samples, both undiluted and upon 10 x, 50 x and 100 x dilutions in NaCl 0.9%. The P. falciparum targets included histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP-2, n = 17) and P. falciparum-specific parasite lactate dehydrogenase (Pf-pLDH, n = 5). Test lines intensities were recorded in the following categories: negative, faint, weak, medium or strong. The prozone effect was defined as an increase in test line intensity of at least one category after dilution, if observed upon duplicate testing and by two readers.

Results

Sixteen of the 17 HRP-2 based RDTs were affected by prozone: the prozone effect was observed in at least one RDT sample/brand combination for 16/17 HRP-2 based RDTs in 6/7 samples, but not for any of the Pf-pLDH tests. The HRP-2 line intensities of the undiluted sample/brand combinations with prozone effect (n = 51) included a single negative (1.9%) and 29 faint and weak readings (56.9%). The other target lens (P. vivax-pLDH, pan-specific pLDH and aldolase) did not show a prozone effect.

Conclusion

This study confirms the prozone effect as a cause of false-negative HRP-2 RDTs in samples with hyperparasitaemia.

SUBMITTER: Gillet P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2789093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIn non-endemic settings, expertise in malaria microscopy is limited and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are an adjunct to malaria diagnosis.AimWe performed an External Quality Assessment (EQA) on reading and interpretation of malaria RDTs in a non-endemic setting.MethodsParticipants were medical laboratories in Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg using malaria RDTs; they received (i) 10 high-resolution photographs presenting test line combinations of RDTs with interpretations listed in a multiple choice format and (ii) a questionnaire about their practices of malaria diagnosis.ResultsAmong 135 subscribing laboratories, 134 (99.3%) used 139 RDT products (11 different products from 8 brands). After exclusion of the results of one laboratory, analysis was done for 133 laboratories using 137 RDT products. Scores of 10/10, 9/10 and 8/10 were achieved for 58.4%, 13.1% and 8.0% of 137 RDT products respectively. For three-band P. falciparum-pan-Plasmodium RDTs (113 (82.5%) products, 6 brands), most frequent errors were (1) disregarding faint test lines (18.6%), (2) reporting invalid instead of P. falciparum (16.8%) and (3) reporting "Plasmodium spp., no further differentiation possible" without mentioning the presence or absence of P. falciparum (11.5%). For four-band RDTs (21 (15.3%) products, 1 brand), errors were (4) disregarding faint P. vivax test lines (47.6%) and (5) reporting "Plasmodium spp., no further differentiation possible" without mentioning the presence of P. falciparum and P. vivax (28.6%). Instructions for use (IFU) of only 4 out of 10 RDT products mentioned to interpret faint-intensity test lines as positive (conducive to errors 1 and 4) and IFU of 2 products displayed incorrect information (conducive to errors 2 and 5). Outside of office hours, 36.1% of participants relied on RDTs as the initial diagnostic test; 13.9% did not perform microscopic confirmation.ConclusionReading and interpretation of malaria RDTs was satisfactory, but errors were embedded in the instructions for use of the products. Relying on RDTs alone for malaria diagnosis (about one third of participants) is not a recommended practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends parasitological confirmation of all malaria cases. Tanzania is implementing a phased rollout of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for routine use in all levels of care as one strategy to increase parasitological confirmation of malaria diagnosis. This study was carried out to evaluated artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) prescribing patterns in febrile patients with and without uncomplicated malaria in one pre-RDT implementation and one post-RDT implementation area. METHODS: A cross-sectional health facility surveys was conducted during high and low malaria transmission seasons in 2010 in both areas. Clinical information and a reference blood film on all patients presenting for an initial illness consultation were collected. Malaria was defined as a history of fever in the past 48 h and microscopically confirmed parasitaemia. Routine diagnostic testing was defined as RDT or microscopy ordered by the health worker and performed at the health facility as part of the health worker-patient consultation. Correct diagnostic testing was defined as febrile patient tested with RDT or microscopy. Over-testing was defined as a non-febrile patient tested with RDT or microscopy. Correct treatment was defined as patient with malaria prescribed ACT. Over-treatment was defined as patient without malaria prescribed ACT. RESULTS: A total of 1,247 febrile patients (627 from pre-implementation area and 620 from post-implementation area) were included in the analysis. In the post-RDT implementation area, 80.9% (95% CI, 68.2-89.3) of patients with malaria received recommended treatment with ACT compared to 70.3% (95% CI, 54.7-82.2) of patients in the pre-RDT implementation area. Correct treatment was significantly higher in the post-implementation area during high transmission season (85.9% (95% CI, 72.0-93.6) compared to 58.3% (95% CI, 39.4-75.1) in pre-implementation area (p?=?0.01). Over-treatment with ACT of patients without malaria was less common in the post-RDT implementation area (20.9%; 95% CI, 14.7-28.8) compared to the pre-RDT implementation area (45.8%; 95% CI, 37.2-54.6) (p?<?0.01) in high transmission. The odds of overtreatment was significantly lower in post- RDT area (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR: 95% CI) 0.57(0.36-0.89); and much higher with clinical diagnosis adjusted OR (95% CI) 2.24(1.37-3.67) CONCLUSION: Implementation of RDTs increased use of RDTs for parasitological confirmation and reduced over-treatment with ACT during high malaria transmission season in one area in Tanzania. Continued monitoring of the national RDT rollout will be needed to assess whether these changes in case management practices will be replicated in other areas and sustained over time. Additional measures (such as refresher trainings, closer supervisions, etc.) may be needed to improve ACT targeting during low transmission seasons.

Project description:BackgroundA new more highly sensitive rapid diagnostic test (HS-RDT) for Plasmodium falciparum malaria (Alere™/Abbott Malaria Ag P.f RDT [05FK140], now called NxTek™ Eliminate Malaria Ag Pf) was launched in 2017. The test has already been used in many research studies in a wide range of geographies and use cases.MethodsIn this study, we collate all published and available unpublished studies that use the HS-RDT and assess its performance in (i) prevalence surveys, (ii) clinical diagnosis, (iii) screening pregnant women, and (iv) active case detection. Two individual-level data sets from asymptomatic populations are used to fit logistic regression models to estimate the probability of HS-RDT positivity based on histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) concentration and parasite density. The performance of the HS-RDT in prevalence surveys is estimated by calculating the sensitivity and positive proportion in comparison to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and conventional malaria RDTs.ResultsWe find that across 18 studies, in prevalence surveys, the mean sensitivity of the HS-RDT is estimated to be 56.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.9-65.4%) compared to 44.3% (95% CI 32.6-56.0%) for a conventional RDT (co-RDT) when using nucleic acid amplification techniques as the reference standard. In studies where prevalence was estimated using both the HS-RDT and a co-RDT, we found that prevalence was on average 46% higher using a HS-RDT compared to a co-RDT. For use in clinical diagnosis and screening pregnant women, the HS-RDT was not significantly more sensitive than a co-RDT.ConclusionsOverall, the evidence presented here suggests that the HS-RDT is more sensitive in asymptomatic populations and could provide a marginal improvement in clinical diagnosis and screening pregnant women. Although the HS-RDT has limited temperature stability and shelf-life claims compared to co-RDTs, there is no evidence to suggest, given this test has the same cost as current RDTs, it would have any negative impacts in terms of malaria misdiagnosis if it were widely used in all four population groups explored here.