Secondary analysis of malaria rapid diagnostic tests from rounds 5-8 of WHO product testing with a focus on false-negative results.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xu B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8496075 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The majority of Plasmodium falciparum malaria diagnoses in Africa are made using rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect histidine-rich protein 2. Increasing reports of false-negative RDT results due to parasites with deletions of the pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 genes (pfhrp2/3) raise concern about existing malaria diagnostic strategies. We previously identified pfhrp2-negative parasites among asymptomatic children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), but their impact on diagnosis of symptomatic malaria is unknown. We performed a cross-sectional study of false-negative RDTs in symptomatic subjects in 2017. Parasites were characterized by microscopy; RDT; pfhrp2/3 genotyping and species-specific PCR assays; a bead-based immunoassay for Plasmodium antigens; and/or whole-genome sequencing. Among 3627 symptomatic subjects, 427 (11.8%) had RDT-/microscopy + results. Parasites from eight (0.2%) samples were initially classified as putative pfhrp2/3 deletions by PCR, but antigen testing and whole-genome sequencing confirmed the presence of intact genes. 56.8% of subjects had PCR-confirmed malaria. Non-falciparum co-infection with P. falciparum was common (13.2%). Agreement between PCR and HRP2-based RDTs was satisfactory (Cohen's kappa = 0.66) and superior to microscopy (0.33). Symptomatic malaria due to pfhrp2/3-deleted P. falciparum was not observed. Ongoing HRP2-based RDT use is appropriate for the detection of falciparum malaria in the DRC.
| S-EPMC7985209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used for malaria diagnosis, but test performance and the factors that lead to failure of Plasmodium ovale detection are not well understood. In this study, three pLDH-based RDTs were evaluated using cases in China that originated in Africa. The sensitivity of Wondfo Pf/Pan, CareStart pLDH PAN and SD BIOLINE Pf/Pan in P. ovale detection was 70, 55 and 18%, respectively. CareStart was worse at detecting P. o. curtisi (36.5%) than at detecting P. o. wallikeri (75.0%), and SD could not detect P. o. curtisi. The overall detection ratio of all three RDTs decreased with parasite density and pLDH concentration. Wondfo, CareStart and SD detected only 75.0, 78.1 and 46.9% of the P. ovale cases, respectively, even when the parasitemia were higher than 5000 parasites/μL. Subspecies of P. ovale should be considered while to improve RDT quality for P. ovale diagnosis to achieve the goal of malaria elimination.
| S-EPMC6428349 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lymphedema is the chronic enlargement of tissue due to inadequate lymphatic function. Diagnosis is made by history and physical examination and confirmed with lymphoscintigraphy. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of lymphoscintigraphy for the diagnosis of lymphedema and to determine characteristics of patients with false-negative tests.Individuals referred to our lymphedema program with "lymphedema" between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed. Subjects were assessed by history, physical examination, and lymphoscintigraphy. Patient age at presentation, duration of lymphedema, location of disease, gender, previous infections, and lymphedema type were analyzed.The study included 227 patients (454 limbs); lymphedema was diagnosed clinically in 169 subjects and confirmed by lymphoscintigraphy in 162 (117 primary, 45 secondary; 96% sensitivity). Fifty-eight patients were thought to have a condition other than lymphedema, and all had negative lymphoscintigrams (100% specificity). A subgroup analysis of the 7 individuals with lymphedema clinically, but normal lymphoscintigrams, showed that all had primary lymphedema; duration of disease and infection history were not different between true-positive and false-negative lymphoscintigram results (P = 0.5). Two patients with a false-negative test underwent repeat lymphoscintigraphy, which then showed lymphatic dysfunction consistent with lymphedema.Lymphoscintigraphy is very sensitive and specific for lymphedema. All patients with false-negative studies had primary lymphedema. A patient with a high clinical suspicion of lymphedema and a normal lymphoscintigram should be treated conservatively for the disease and undergo repeat lymphoscintigraphy.
| S-EPMC5548565 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: In endemic settings, diagnosis of malaria increasingly relies on the use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). False positivity of such RDTs is poorly documented, although it is especially relevant in those infections that resemble malaria, such as human African trypanosomiasis (HAT). We therefore examined specificity of malaria RDT products among patients infected with Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Blood samples of 117 HAT patients and 117 matched non-HAT controls were prospectively collected in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Reference malaria diagnosis was based on real-time PCR. Ten commonly used malaria RDT products were assessed including three two-band and seven three-band products, targeting HRP-2, Pf-pLDH and/or pan-pLDH antigens. Rheumatoid factor was determined in PCR negative subjects. Specificity of the 10 malaria RDT products varied between 79.5 and 100% in HAT-negative controls and between 11.3 and 98.8% in HAT patients. For seven RDT products, specificity was significantly lower in HAT patients compared to controls. False positive reactions in HAT were mainly observed for pan-pLDH test lines (specificities between 13.8 and 97.5%), but also occurred frequently for the HRP-2 test line (specificities between 67.9 and 98.8%). The Pf-pLDH test line was not affected by false-positive lines in HAT patients (specificities between 97.5 and 100%). False positivity was not associated to rheumatoid factor, detected in 7.6% of controls and 1.2% of HAT patients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Specificity of some malaria RDT products in HAT was surprisingly low, and constitutes a risk for misdiagnosis of a fatal but treatable infection. Our results show the importance to assess RDT specificity in non-targeted infections when evaluating diagnostic tests.
| S-EPMC3636101 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can produce false positive (FP) results in patients with human African trypanosomiasis and rheumatoid factor (RF), but specificity against other infectious agents and immunological factors is largely unknown. Low diagnostic specificity caused by cross-reactivity may lead to over-estimates of the number of malaria cases and over-use of antimalarial drugs, at the cost of not diagnosing and treating the true underlying condition. METHODS:Data from the WHO Malaria RDT Product Testing Programme was analysed to assess FP rates of 221 RDTs against four infectious agents (Chagas, dengue, Leishmaniasis and Schistosomiasis) and four immunological factors (anti-nuclear antibody, human anti-mouse antibody (HAMA), RF and rapid plasma regain). Only RDTs with a FP rate against clean negative samples less than 10% were included. Paired t-tests were used to compare product-specific FP rates on clean negative samples and samples containing non-Plasmodium infectious agents and immunological factors. RESULTS:Forty (18%) RDTs showed no FP results against any tested infectious agent or immunological factor. In the remaining RDTs significant and clinically relevant increases in FP rates were observed for samples containing HAMA and RF (P<0.001). There were significant correlations between product-matched FP rates for RF and HAMA on all RDT test bands (P<0.001), and FP rates for each infectious agent and immunological factor were also correlated between test bands of combination RDTs (P?0.002). CONCLUSIONS:False positive results against non-Plasmodium infectious agents and immunological factors does not appear to be a universal property of malaria RDTs. However, since many malaria RDTs have elevated FP rates against HAMA and RF positive samples practitioners may need to consider the possibility of false positive results for malaria in patients with conditions that stimulate HAMA or RF.
| S-EPMC5951549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is diagnosed via detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). Performance of many SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR assays is not entirely known due to the lack of a gold standard. We sought to evaluate the false negative rate (FNR) and sensitivity of our laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR targeting the envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) genes.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR results at the Public Health Laboratory (Alberta, Canada) from January 21 to April 18, 2020 were reviewed to identify patients with an initial negative rtRT-PCR followed by a positive result on repeat testing within 14 days (defined as discordant results). Negative samples from these discordant specimens were re-tested using three alternate rtRT-PCR assays (targeting the E gene and N1/N2 regions of the nucleocapsid genes) to assess for false negative (FN) results.ResultsDuring the time period specified, 95,919 patients (100,001 samples) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 49 patients were found to have discordant results including 49 positive and 52 negative swabs. Repeat testing of 52 negative swabs found five FNs (from five separate patients). Assuming 100% specificity of the diagnostic assay, the FNR and sensitivity in this group of patients with discordant testing was 9.3% (95% CI 1.5-17.0%) and 90.7% (95% CI 82.6-98.9%) respectively.ConclusionsStudies to understand the FNR of routinely used assays are important to confirm adequate clinical performance. In this study, most FN results were due to low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in patients with multiple specimens collected during different stages of infection. Post-test clinical evaluation of each patient is advised to ensure that rtRT-PCR results are not the only factor in excluding COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7794619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The performance of different malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) may be influenced by transmission intensity and by the length of time each test requires to become negative after treatment and patient's recovery.Results of three RDTs (two HRP2 and one pLDH antigen-based tests) were compared to blood smear microscopy (the gold standard method) in children under 5 years of age living in a high versus low malaria intensity setting in southwestern Uganda. In each setting, 212 children, who tested positive by at least one RDT and by microscopy, were treated with artemether-lumefantrine. RDTs and microscopy were then repeated at fixed intervals to estimate each test's time to negativity after treatment and patient recovery.In the two settings, sensitivities ranged from 98.4 to 99.2 % for the HRP2 tests and 94.7 to 96.1 % for the pLDH test. Specificities were 98.9 and 98.8 % for the HRP2 tests and 99.7 % for the pLDH test in the low-transmission setting and 79.7, 80.7 and 93.9 %, respectively, in the high-transmission setting. Median time to become negative was 35-42 or more days for the HRP2 tests and 2 days for the pLDH test.High transmission contexts and a long time to become negative resulted in considerably reduced specificities for the HRP2 tests. Choice of RDT for low- versus high-transmission settings should balance risks and benefits of over-treatment versus missing malaria cases.Registry number at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01325974.
| S-EPMC5050565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:After lifting the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and opening businesses, screening is essential to prevent the spread of the virus. Group testing could be a promising candidate for screening to save time and resources. However, due to the high false-negative rate (FNR) of the RT-PCR diagnostic test, we should be cautious about using group testing because a group's false-negative result identifies all the individuals in a group as uninfected. Repeating the test is the best solution to reduce the FNR, and repeats should be integrated with the group-testing method to increase the sensitivity of the test. The simplest way is to replicate the test twice for each group (the 2Rgt method). In this paper, we present a new method for group testing (the groupMix method), which integrates two repeats in the test. Then we introduce the 2-stage sequential version of both the groupMix and the 2Rgt methods. We compare these methods analytically regarding the sensitivity and the average number of tests. The tradeoff between the sensitivity and the average number of tests should be considered when choosing the best method for the screening strategy. We applied the groupMix method to screening 263 people and identified 2 infected individuals by performing 98 tests. This method achieved a 63% saving in the number of tests compared to individual testing. Our experimental results show that in COVID-19 screening, the viral load can be low, and the group size should not be more than 6; otherwise, the FNR increases significantly. A web interface of the groupMix method is publicly available for laboratories to implement this method.
| S-EPMC8170512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many countries are shifting their efforts from malaria control to disease elimination. New technologies will be necessary to meet the more stringent demands of elimination campaigns, including improved quality control of malaria diagnostic tests, as well as an improved means for communicating test results among field healthcare workers, test manufacturers, and national ministries of health. In this report, we describe and evaluate an embedded barcode within standard rapid diagnostic tests as one potential solution. This information-augmented diagnostic test operates on the familiar principles of traditional lateral flow assays and simply replaces the control line with a control grid patterned in the shape of a QR (quick response) code. After the test is processed, the QR code appears on both positive or negative tests. In this report we demonstrate how this multipurpose code can be used not only to fulfill the control line role of test validation, but also to embed test manufacturing details, serve as a trigger for image capture, enable registration for image analysis, and correct for lighting effects. An accompanying mobile phone application automatically captures an image of the test when the QR code is recognized, decodes the QR code, performs image processing to determine the concentration of the malarial biomarker histidine-rich protein 2 at the test line, and transmits the test results and QR code payload to a secure web portal. This approach blends automated, sub-nanomolar biomarker detection, with near real-time reporting to provide quality assurance data that will help to achieve malaria elimination.
| S-EPMC6474256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurveillance programmes often use malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to determine the proportion of the population carrying parasites in their peripheral blood to assess the malaria transmission intensity. Despite an increasing number of reports on false-negative and false-positive RDT results, there is a lack of systematic quality control activities for RDTs deployed in malaria surveillance programmes.MethodsThe diagnostic performance of field-deployed RDTs used for malaria surveys was assessed by retrospective molecular analysis of the blood retained on the tests.ResultsOf the 2865 RDTs that were collected in 2018 on Bioko Island and analysed in this study, 4.7% had a false-negative result. These false-negative RDTs were associated with low parasite density infections. In 16.6% of analysed samples, masked pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions were identified, in which at least one Plasmodium falciparum strain carried a gene deletion. Among all positive RDTs analysed, 28.4% were tested negative by qPCR and therefore considered to be false-positive. Analysing the questionnaire data collected from the participants, this high proportion of false-positive RDTs could be explained by P. falciparum histidine rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) antigen persistence after recent malaria treatment.ConclusionMalaria surveillance depending solely on RDTs needs well-integrated quality control procedures to assess the extent and impact of reduced sensitivity and specificity of RDTs on malaria control programmes.
| S-EPMC8785039 | biostudies-literature