Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests versus blood smears for malaria in US clinical practice.

ABSTRACT: Approximately 4 million US travelers to developing countries are ill enough to seek health care, with 1500 malaria cases reported in the United States annually. The diagnosis of malaria is frequently delayed because of the time required to prepare malaria blood films and lack of technical expertise. An easy, reliable rapid diagnostic test (RDT) with high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV), particularly for Plasmodium falciparum, would be clinically useful. The objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of a RDT approved by the US Food and Drug Administration compared with traditional thick and thin blood smears for malaria diagnosis.This prospective study tested 852 consecutive blood samples that underwent thick and thin smears and blinded malaria RDTs at 3 hospital laboratories during 2003-2006. Polymerase chain reaction verified positive test results and discordant results.Malaria was noted in 95 (11%) of the 852 samples. The RDT had superior performance than the standard Giemsa thick blood smear (p = .003). The RDT's sensitivity for all malaria was 97% (92 of 95 samples), compared with 85% (81 of 95) for the blood smear, and the RDT had a superior NPV of 99.6%, compared with 98.2% for the blood smear (p = .001). The P. falciparum performance was excellent, with 100% rapid test sensitivity, compared with only 88% (65 of 74) by blood smear (p = .003).This operational study demonstrates that the US Food and Drug Administration-approved RDT for malaria is superior to a single set of blood smears performed under routine US clinical laboratory conditions. The most valuable clinical role of the RDT is in the rapid diagnosis or the exclusion of P. falciparum malaria, which is particularly useful in outpatient settings when evaluating febrile travelers.

SUBMITTER: Stauffer WM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2912215 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests versus blood smears for malaria in US clinical practice.

Stauffer William M WM Cartwright Charles P CP Olson Douglas A DA Juni Billie Anne BA Taylor Charlotte M CM Bowers Susan H SH Hanson Kevan L KL Rosenblatt Jon E JE Boulware David R DR

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20090901 6

<h4>Background</h4>Approximately 4 million US travelers to developing countries are ill enough to seek health care, with 1500 malaria cases reported in the United States annually. The diagnosis of malaria is frequently delayed because of the time required to prepare malaria blood films and lack of technical expertise. An easy, reliable rapid diagnostic test (RDT) with high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV), particularly for Plasmodium falciparum, would be clinically useful. The obj ...[more]

PMID: 19686072

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundParasitological confirmation of malaria is now recommended in all febrile patients by the World Health Organization (WHO) to reduce inappropriate use of anti-malarial drugs. Widespread implementation of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) is regarded as an effective strategy to achieve this goal. However, the quality of diagnosis provided by RDTs in remote rural dispensaries and health centres is not ideal. Feasible RDT quality control programmes in these settings are challenging. Collection of information regarding diagnostic events is also very deficient in low-resource countries.MethodsA prospective cohort of consecutive patients aged more than one year from both genders, seeking routine care for febrile episodes at dispensaries located in the Bagamoyo district of Tanzania, were enrolled into the study after signing an informed consent form. Blood samples were taken for thick blood smear (TBS) microscopic examination and malaria RDT (SD Bioline Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™ (SD RDT)). RDT results were interpreted by both visual interpretation and Deki Reader™ device. Results of visual interpretation were used for case management purposes. Microscopy was considered the "gold standard test" to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the Deki Reader interpretation and to compare it to visual interpretation.ResultsIn total, 1,346 febrile subjects were included in the final analysis. The SD RDT, when used in conjunction with the Deki Reader and upon visual interpretation, had sensitivities of 95.3% (95% CI, 90.6-97.7) and 94.7% (95% CI, 89.8-97.3) respectively, and specificities of 94.6% (95% CI, 93.5-96.1) and 95.6% (95% CI, 94.2-96.6), respectively to gold standard. There was a high percentage of overall agreement between the two methods of interpretation.ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of the Deki Reader in interpretation of SD RDTs were comparable to previous reports and showed high agreement to visual interpretation (>98%). The results of the study reflect the situation in real practice and show good performance characteristics of Deki Reader on interpreting malaria RDTs in the hands of local laboratory technicians. They also suggest that a system like this could provide great benefits to the health care system. Further studies to look at ease of use by community health workers, and cost benefit of the system are warranted.

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.

Project description:Accurate diagnosis of malaria is vital for the effectiveness of parasite clearance interventions in elimination settings. Thus, evaluating the diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) used in malaria parasite clearance interventions in elimination settings is essential. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests recently used in detecting malaria parasites in northwest Ethiopia. A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021 comparing PfHRP2/pLDH CareStart malaria RDTs with light microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Blood samples were collected from 310 febrile patients who attended the outpatient department and examined using CareStart RDTs, light microscopy, and PCR. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA/SE version 17.0. The sensitivity of PfHRP2/pLDH CareStart malaria RDTs, regardless of species, was 81.0% [95% CI, 75.3, 86.7] and 75.8% [95% CI, 69.6, 82.0] compared to light microscopy and PCR, while the specificity was 96.8% [95% CI, 93.7, 99.9] and 93.2% [95% CI, 88.6, 97.8], respectively. The false-negative rate of CareStart malaria RDTs in comparison with light microscopy and PCR was 19.0% and 24.2%, respectively. The level of agreement beyond chance between tests was substantial, RDT versus microscopy was 75.0% and RDT versus PCR was 65.1%. The diagnostic performance of PfHRP2/pLDH CareStart RDTs in detecting malaria parasites among febrile patients in the study area was below the recommended WHO standard. The limited diagnostic performance of RDTs in the malaria elimination area undoubtedly affects the impact of malaria parasite clearance interventions. Therefore, parasite clearance intervention like targeted mass drug administration with antimalarial drugs is recommended to back up the limited diagnostic performance of the RDT or replace the existing malaria RDTs with more sensitive, field-deployable, and affordable diagnostic tests.

Project description:Background An ultrasensitive malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) was recently developed for the improved detection of low-density Plasmodium falciparum infections. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the PfHRP2-based Abbott Malaria Ag P. falciparum ultrasensitive RDT (uRDT) to that of the conventional SD-Bioline Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT (cRDT) when performed under field conditions. Methods Finger-prick blood samples were collected from adults and children in two cross-sectional surveys in May of 2017 in southern Mozambique. Using real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the reference method, the age-specific diagnostic performance indicators of the cRDT and uRDT were compared. The presence of histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) and Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) antigens was evaluated in a subset from dried blood spots by a quantitative antigen assay. pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions were assessed in samples positive by RT-qPCR and negative by both RDTs. Results Among the 4,396 participants with complete test results, the sensitivity of uRDTs (68.2; 95% CI 60.8 to 74.9) was marginally better than that of cRDTs (61.5; 95% CI 53.9 to 68.6) (p-value?=?0.004), while the specificities were similar (uRDT: 99.0 [95% CI 98.6 to 99.2], cRDT: 99.2 [95% CI 98.9 to 99.4], p-value?=?0.02). While the performance of both RDTs was lowest in???15-year-olds, driven by the higher prevalence of low parasite density infections in this group, the sensitivity of uRDTs was significantly higher in this age group (54.9, 95% CI 40.3 to 68.9) compared to the sensitivity of cRDTs (39.2, 95% CI 25.8 to 53.9) (p-value?=?0.008). Both RDTs detected P. falciparum infections at similar geometric mean parasite densities (112.9 parasites/?L for uRDTs and 145.5 parasites/?L for cRDTs). The presence of HRP2 antigen was similar among false positive (FP) samples of both tests (80.5% among uRDT-FPs and 84.4% among cRDT-FPs). Only one false negative sample was detected with a partial pfhrp2 deletion. Conclusion This study showed that the uRDTs developed by Abbott do not substantially outperform SD-Bioline Pf malaria RDTs in the community and are still not comparable to molecular methods to detect P. falciparum infections in this study setting.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent Uganda National Malaria treatment guidelines recommend parasitological confirmation either by microscopy or rapid diagnostic test (RDT) before treatment with artemether-lumefantrine (AL). However, the cost-effectiveness of these strategies has not been assessed at rural operational primary care centres.MethodsThree health centres (HCs) were randomized to three diagnostic arms (microscopy, RDT and presumptive diagnosis) in a district of low and another of high malaria transmission intensities in Uganda. Some 22,052 patients presenting with fever at outpatients departments were enrolled from March 2010 to February 2011. Of these, a random sample of 1,627 was selected to measure additional socio-economic characteristics. Costing was performed following the standard step-down cost allocation and the ingredients approach. Effectiveness was measured as the number and proportion of patients correctly diagnosed and treated. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were estimated from the societal perspective (http://Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00565071).ResultsOverall RDT was most cost-effective with lowest ICER US$5.0 compared to microscopy US$9.61 per case correctly diagnosed and treated. In the high transmission setting, ICER was US$4.38 for RDT and US$12.98 for microscopy. The corresponding ICERs in the low transmission setting were US$5.85 and US$7.63 respectively. The difference in ICERs between RDT and microscopy was greater in the high transmission area (US$8.9) than in low transmission setting (US$1.78). At a willingness to pay of US$2.8, RDT remained cost effective up to a threshold value of the cost of treatment of US$4.7.ConclusionRDT was cost effective in both low and high transmission settings. With a global campaign to reduce the costs of AL and RDT, the Malaria Control Programme and stakeholders need a strategy for malaria diagnosis because as the cost of AL decreases, presumptive treatment is likely to become more attractive.

Project description:BackgroundTo overcome the limitations of conventional malaria rapid diagnostic tests (cRDTs) in diagnosing malaria in patients with low parasitaemia, ultrasensitive malaria rapid diagnostic tests (uRDTs) have recently been developed, with promising results under laboratory conditions. The current study is the first meta-analysis comparing the overall sensitivity, and specificity of newly developed ultrasensitive Plasmodium falciparum malaria RDT (Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT) with the cRDT conducted in the same field conditions.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane infectious diseases group specialized register, and African Journals Online (AJOL) were searched up to 20th April 2021. Studies with enough data to compute sensitivity and specificity of uRDT and cRDT were retrieved. A random-effect model for meta-analysis was used to obtain the pooled sensitivity and specificity.ResultsOverall, 15 data sets from 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of the Alere™ ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 55.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.5; 65.0), while the sensitivity regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants, was 42.9% (95% CI: 31.5; 55.2) for the cRDT performed in the same field conditions. When PCR was used as reference test, the sensitivity of uRDT was 60.4% (95% CI: 50.8; 69.2), while the sensitivity was 49.4% (95% CI: 38.2; 60.6) for the cRDT. The pooled specificity of uRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 98.6% (95% CI: 97.1; 99.4), and the pooled specificity of cRDT regardless of the reference test and the clinical presentation of participants was 99.3% (95% CI: 98.1; 99.7). When PCR was used as reference test the specificity of uRDT and cRDT was 97.5% (95% CI: 94.1; 98.9) and 98.2% (95% CI: 95.5; 99.3). Regardless of the reference test used, the sensitivity of Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT in symptomatic patients was 72.1% (95%CI: 67.4; 76.4), while sensitivity of cRDT was 67.4% (95%CI: 57.6; 75.9).ConclusionFindings of the meta-analysis show that Alere™ Ultra-sensitive Malaria Ag P. falciparum RDT compared to cRDT performed in the same field conditions has higher sensitivity but lower specificity although the difference is not statistically significant.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests versus blood smears for malaria in US clinical practice.

Publications

Diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic tests versus blood smears for malaria in US clinical practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets