Malaria surveys using rapid diagnostic tests and validation of results using post hoc quantification of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2

Malaria Journal

Methodology

James Colborn¹  Aida Badiane²  Daouda Ndiaye²  John W. Barnwell³  Kimberly Mace³  Michelle Chang³  Michael Aidoo³  Eric Rogier³  Venkatachalam Udhayakumar³  Mateusz Plucinski⁴  Eric S. Halsey⁴  Rafael Dimbu⁵  Baltazar Candrinho⁶  Jean F. Lemoine⁷ 

[1] Clinton Health Access Initiative, Boston, MA, USA;Department of Pharmacy and Odontology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal;Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA;Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA;U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA;National Malaria Control Programme, Luanda, Angola;National Malaria Control Programme, Maputo, Mozambique;Programme National de Contrôle de la Malaria, Ministère de la Santé Publique et de la Population (MSPP), Port-au-Prince, Haiti;

关键词: Malaria;    Rapid diagnostic test;    Limit of detection;    Bead assay;    Histidine-rich protein 2;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12936-017-2101-8

 received in 2017-09-08, accepted in 2017-10-31,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundRapid diagnostic test (RDT) positivity is supplanting microscopy as the standard measure of malaria burden at the population level. However, there is currently no standard for externally validating RDT results from field surveys.MethodsIndividuals’ blood concentration of the Plasmodium falciparum histidine rich protein 2 (HRP2) protein were compared to results of HRP2-detecting RDTs in participants from field surveys in Angola, Mozambique, Haiti, and Senegal. A logistic regression model was used to estimate the HRP2 concentrations corresponding to the 50 and 90% level of detection (LOD) specific for each survey.ResultsThere was a sigmoidal dose–response relationship between HRP2 concentration and RDT positivity for all surveys. Variation was noted in estimates for field RDT sensitivity, with the 50% LOD ranging between 0.076 and 6.1 ng/mL and the 90% LOD ranging between 1.1 and 53 ng/mL. Surveys conducted in two different provinces of Angola using the same brand of RDT and same study methodology showed a threefold difference in LOD.ConclusionsMeasures of malaria prevalence estimated using population RDT positivity should be interpreted in the context of potentially large variation in RDT LODs between, and even within, surveys. Surveys based on RDT positivity would benefit from external validation of field RDT results by comparing RDT positivity and antigen concentration.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2017