Dataset Information

Assessing field performance of ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic tests for malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

To 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.

Methods

PubMed, 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.

Results

Overall, 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).

Conclusion

Findings 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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-021-03783-2.

SUBMITTER: Danwang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8176703 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundSuccessful malaria treatment, control and elimination programs require accurate, affordable, and field-deployable diagnostic tests. A number of studies have directly compared diagnostic performance between the new ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test (us-RDT) and conventional rapid diagnostic test (co-RDT) for detecting malaria. Thus, we undertook this review to directly compare pooled diagnostic performance of us-RDT and co-RDT for detection of malaria.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest were searched from their inception until 31 January 2021 accompanied by forward and backward citations tracking. Two authors independently assessed the quality of included studies by RevMan5 software (using the QUADAS-2 checklist). Diagnostic accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity and others) were pooled using a random-effect model and 95% confidence interval (CI) in Stata 15 software.ResultsFifteen studies with a total of 20,236 paired co-RDT and us-RDT tests were included in the meta-analysis. Molecular methods (15 studies) and immunoassay test (one study) were used as standard methods for comparison with co-RDT and us-RDT tests. The pooled sensitivity for co-RDT and us-RDT were 42% (95%CI: 25-62%) and 61% (95%CI: 47-73%), respectively, with specificity of 99% (95%CI: 98-100%) for co-RDT, and 99% (95%CI: 96-99%) for us-RDT. In asymptomatic individuals, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of co-RDT were 27% (95%CI: 8-58%) and 100% (95%CI: 97-100%), respectively, while us-RDT had a sensitivity of 50% (95%CI: 33-68%) and specificity of 98% (95%CI: 94-100%). In low transmission settings, pooled sensitivity for co-RDT was 36% (95%CI: 9 76%) and 62% (95%CI: 44 77%) for us RDT, while in high transmission areas, pooled sensitivity for co RDT and us RDT were 62% (95%CI: 39 80%) and 75% (95%CI: 57-87%), respectively.ConclusionThe us-RDT test showed better performance than co-RDT test, and this characteristic is more evident in asymptomatic individuals and low transmission areas; nonetheless, additional studies integrating a range of climate, geography, and demographics are needed to reliably understand the potential of the us-RDT.

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: During pregnancy, malaria infection with Plasmodium falciparum or Plasmodium vivax is related to adverse maternal health and poor birth outcomes. Diagnosis of malaria, during pregnancy, is complicated by the absence or low parasite densities in peripheral blood. Diagnostic methods, other than microscopy, are needed for detection of placental malaria. Therefore, the diagnostic accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), detecting antigen, and molecular techniques (PCR), detecting DNA, for the diagnosis of Plasmodium infections in pregnancy was systematically reviewed. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs, PCR, microscopy of peripheral and placental blood and placental histology for the detection of malaria infection (all species) in pregnant women. RESULTS: The results of 49 studies were analysed in metandi (Stata), of which the majority described P. falciparum infections. Although both placental and peripheral blood microscopy cannot reliably replace histology as a reference standard for placental P. falciparum infection, many studies compared RDTs and PCR to these tests. The proportion of microscopy positives in placental blood (sensitivity) detected by peripheral blood microscopy, RDTs and PCR are respectively 72% [95% CI 62-80], 81% [95% CI 55-93] and 94% [95% CI 86-98]. The proportion of placental blood microscopy negative women that were negative in peripheral blood microscopy, RDTs and PCR (specificity) are 98% [95% CI 95-99], 94% [95% CI 76-99] and 77% [95% CI 71-82]. Based on the current data, it was not possible to determine if the false positives in RDTs and PCR are caused by sequestered parasites in the placenta that are not detected by placental microscopy. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that RDTs and PCR may have good performance characteristics to serve as alternatives for the diagnosis of malaria in pregnancy, besides any other limitations and practical considerations concerning the use of these tests. Nevertheless, more studies with placental histology as reference test are urgently required to reliably determine the accuracy of RDTs and PCR for the diagnosis of placental malaria. P. vivax-infections have been neglected in diagnostic test accuracy studies of malaria in pregnancy.

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.