Rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosing uncomplicated non-falciparum or Plasmodium vivax malaria in endemic countries

BACKGROUND

In settings where both Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum infection cause malaria, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) need to distinguish which species is causing the patients' symptoms, as different treatments are required. Older RDTs incorporated two test lines to distinguish malaria due to P. falciparum, from malaria due to any other Plasmodium species (non-falciparum). These RDTs can be classified according to which antibodies they use: Type 2 RDTs use HRP-2 (for P. falciparum) and aldolase (all species); Type 3 RDTs use HRP-2 (for P. falciparum) and pLDH (all species); Type 4 use pLDH (fromP. falciparum) and pLDH (all species).More recently, RDTs have been developed to distinguish P. vivax parasitaemia by utilizing a pLDH antibody specific to P. vivax.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for detecting non-falciparum or P. vivax parasitaemia in people living in malaria-endemic areas who present to ambulatory healthcare facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria, and to identify which types and brands of commercial test best detect non-falciparum and P. vivax malaria.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases up to 31 December 2013: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; MEDION; Science Citation Index; Web of Knowledge; African Index Medicus; LILACS; and IndMED.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing RDTs with a reference standard (microscopy or polymerase chain reaction) in blood samples from a random or consecutive series of patients attending ambulatory health facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria in non-falciparum endemic areas.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each study, two review authors independently extracted a standard set of data using a tailored data extraction form. We grouped comparisons by type of RDT (defined by the combinations of antibodies used), and combined in meta-analysis where appropriate. Average sensitivities and specificities are presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 47 studies enrolling 22,862 participants. Patient characteristics, sampling methods and reference standard methods were poorly reported in most studies. RDTs detecting 'non-falciparum' parasitaemiaEleven studies evaluated Type 2 tests compared with microscopy, 25 evaluated Type 3 tests, and 11 evaluated Type 4 tests. In meta-analyses, average sensitivities and specificities were 78% (95% CI 73% to 82%) and 99% (95% CI 97% to 99%) for Type 2 tests, 78% (95% CI 69% to 84%) and 99% (95% CI 98% to 99%) for Type 3 tests, and 89% (95% CI 79% to 95%) and 98% (95% CI 97% to 99%) for Type 4 tests, respectively. Type 4 tests were more sensitive than both Type 2 (P = 0.01) and Type 3 tests (P = 0.03).Five studies compared Type 3 tests with PCR; in meta-analysis, the average sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% CI 72% to 88%) and 99% (95% CI 97% to 99%) respectively. RDTs detecting P.vivax parasitaemiaEight studies compared pLDH tests to microscopy; the average sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and 99% (95% CI 99% to 100%), respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RDTs designed to detect P. vivax specifically, whether alone or as part of a mixed infection, appear to be more accurate than older tests designed to distinguish P. falciparum malaria from non-falciparum malaria. Compared to microscopy, these tests fail to detect around 5% ofP. vivax cases. This Cochrane Review, in combination with other published information about in vitro test performance and stability in the field, can assist policy-makers to choose between the available RDTs.

Rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosing uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria in endemic countries

BACKGROUND

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for Plasmodium falciparum malaria use antibodies to detect either HRP-2 antigen or pLDH antigen, and can improve access to diagnostics in developing countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of RDTs for detecting P. falciparum parasitaemia in persons living in endemic areas who present to ambulatory healthcare facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria by type and brand.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; MEDION; Science Citation Index; Web of Knowledge; African Index Medicus; LILACS; IndMED; to January 14, 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing RDTs with a reference standard (microscopy or polymerase chain reaction) in blood samples from a random or consecutive series of patients attending ambulatory health facilities with symptoms suggestive of malaria in P. falciparum endemic areas.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each study, a standard set of data was extracted independently by two authors, using a tailored data extraction form. Comparisons were grouped hierarchically by target antigen, and type and brand of RDT, and combined in meta-analysis where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 74 unique studies as eligible for this review and categorized them according to the antigens they detected. Types 1 to 3 include HRP-2 (from P. falciparum) either by itself or with other antigens. Types 4 and 5 included pLDH (from P. falciparum) either by itself or with other antigens. In comparisons with microscopy, we identified 71 evaluations of Type 1 tests, eight evaluations of Type 2 tests and five evaluations of Type 3 tests. In meta-analyses, average sensitivities and specificities (95% CI) were 94.8% (93.1% to 96.1%) and 95.2% (93.2% to 96.7%) for Type 1 tests, 96.0% (94.0% to 97.3%) and 95.3% (87.3% to 98.3%) for Type 2 tests, and 99.5% (71.0% to 100.0%) and 90.6% (80.5% to 95.7%) for Type 3 tests, respectively. Overall for HRP-2, the meta-analytical average sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 95.0% (93.5% to 96.2%) and 95.2% (93.4% to 99.4%), respectively. For pLDH antibody-based RDTs verified with microscopy, we identified 17 evaluations of Type 4 RDTs and three evaluations of Type 5 RDTs. In meta-analyses, average sensitivity for Type 4 tests was 91.5% (84.7% to 95.3%) and average specificity was 98.7% (96.9% to 99.5%). For Type 5 tests, average sensitivity was 98.4% (95.1% to 99.5%) and average specificity was 97.5% (93.5% to 99.1%). Overall for pLDH, the meta-analytical average sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 93.2% (88.0% to 96.2%) and 98.5% (96.7% to 99.4%), respectively. For both categories of test, there was substantial heterogeneity in study results. Quality of the microscopy reference standard could only be assessed in 40% of studies due to inadequate reporting, but results did not seem to be influenced by the reporting quality.Overall, HRP-2 antibody-based tests (such as the Type 1 tests) tended to be more sensitive and were significantly less specific than pLDH-based tests (such as the Type 4 tests). If the point estimates for Type 1 and Type 4 tests are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 30% of those presenting with symptoms have P. falciparum, Type 1 tests will miss 16 cases, and Type 4 tests will miss 26 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with P. falciparum would be 34 with Type 1 tests, and nine with Type 4 tests.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of all RDTs is such that they can replace or extend the access of diagnostic services for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria. HRP-2 antibody types may be more sensitive but are less specific than pLDH antibody-based tests, but the differences are small. The HRP-2 antigen persists even after effective treatment and so is not useful for detecting treatment failures. 

Assessment of three new parasite lactate dehydrogenase (pan-pLDH) tests for diagnosis of uncomplicated malaria

A study to assess the diagnostic capabilities of three parasite lactate dehydrogenase (pan-pLDH) tests, Vistapan), Carestart and Parabank), was conducted in Uganda. An HRP2 test, Paracheck-Pf), and a Giemsa-stained blood film were performed with the pLDH tests for outpatients with suspected malaria. In total, 460 subjects were recruited: 248 with positive blood films and 212 with negative blood films. Plasmodium falciparum was present in 95% of infections. Sensitivity above 90% was shown by two pLDH tests, Carestart (95.6%) and Vistapan (91.9%), and specificity above 90% by Parabank (94.3%) and Carestart (91.5%). Sensitivity decreased with low parasitaemia (chi(2) trend, P<0.001); however, all tests achieved sensitivity >90% with parasitaemia > or =100/microl. All tests had good inter-reader reliability (kappa>0.95). Two weeks after diagnosis, 4-10% of pLDH tests were still positive compared with 69.7% of the HRP2 tests. All tests had similar ease of use. In conclusion, two pLDH tests performed well in diagnosing P. falciparum malaria, and all pLDH tests became negative after treatment more quickly than the HRP2. Therefore the rapid test of choice for use with artemisinin-combination therapies in this area would be one of these new pLDH tests.

The reliability of diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis and management of malaria in the absence of a gold standard

The accuracy of techniques for the diagnosis of malaria are usually compared with optical microscopy, which is considered to be a gold standard. However, microscopy is prone to error and therefore makes it difficult to assess the reliability of other diagnostic techniques. We did a systematic review to assess the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic techniques in different settings, using a statistical method that avoided defining a gold standard. Performance varied depending on species of the malaria parasite, level of parasitaemia, and immunity. Overall, histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2)-based dipsticks showed a high sensitivity (92.7%) and specificity (99.2%) for Plasmodium falciparum in endemic areas. The acridine orange test was more sensitive (97.1%) in detecting P falciparum in epidemiological studies, with a specificity of 97.9%. In the absence of a gold standard, HRP2 dipsticks and acridine orange could provide an alternative for detecting falciparum infections in endemic areas and epidemiological studies, respectively. Microscopy still remains more reliable in detecting non-falciparum infections.

Ensuring quality and access for malaria diagnosis: how can it be achieved?

The replacement of conventional antimalarial drugs with high-cost, artemisinin-based alternatives has created a gap in the successful management of malaria. This gap reflects an increased need for accurate disease diagnosis that cannot be met by traditional microscopy techniques. The recent introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has the potential to meet this need, but successful RDT implementation has been curtailed by poor product performance, inadequate methods to determine the quality of products and a lack of emphasis and capacity to deal with these issues. Economics and a desire for improved case management will result in the rapid growth of RDT use in the coming years. However, for their potential to be realized, it is crucial that high-quality RDT products that perform reliably and accurately under field conditions are made available. In achieving this goal, the shift from symptom-based diagnosis to parasite-based management of malaria can bring significant improvements to tropical fever management, rather than represent a further burden on poor, malaria-endemic populations and their overstretched health services.

Ensuring quality and access for malaria diagnosis: how can it be achieved?

The replacement of conventional antimalarial drugs with high-cost, artemisinin-based alternatives has created a gap in the successful management of malaria. This gap reflects an increased need for accurate disease diagnosis that cannot be met by traditional microscopy techniques. The recent introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has the potential to meet this need, but successful RDT implementation has been curtailed by poor product performance, inadequate methods to determine the quality of products and a lack of emphasis and capacity to deal with these issues. Economics and a desire for improved case management will result in the rapid growth of RDT use in the coming years. However, for their potential to be realized, it is crucial that high-quality RDT products that perform reliably and accurately under field conditions are made available. In achieving this goal, the shift from symptom-based diagnosis to parasite-based management of malaria can bring significant improvements to tropical fever management, rather than represent a further burden on poor, malaria-endemic populations and their overstretched health services.

Microfluidic approaches to malaria detection

Microfluidic systems are under development to address a variety of medical problems. Key advantages of micrototal analysis systems based on microfluidic technology are the promise of small size and the integration of sample handling and measurement functions within a single, automated device having low mass-production costs. Here, we review the spectrum of methods currently used to detect malaria, consider their advantages and disadvantages, and discuss their adaptability towards integration into small, automated micro total analysis systems. Molecular amplification methods emerge as leading candidates for chip-based systems because they offer extremely high sensitivity, the ability to recognize malaria species and strain, and they will be adaptable to the detection of new genotypic signatures that will emerge from current genomic-based research of the disease. Current approaches to the development of chip-based molecular amplification are considered with special emphasis on flow-through PCR, and we present for the first time the method of malaria specimen preparation by dielectrophoretic field-flow-fractionation. Although many challenges must be addressed to realize a micrototal analysis system for malaria diagnosis, it is concluded that the potential benefits of the approach are well worth pursuing.

Field and laboratory comparative evaluation of ten rapid malaria diagnostic tests

The paper reports on a comparative evaluation of 10 rapid malaria tests available in South Africa in 1998: AccuCheck (AC, developmental), Cape Biotech (CB), ICT Malaria Pf (ICT1) and Pf/Pv (ICT2), Kat Medical (KAT), MakroMal (MM), OptiMAL (OP), ParaSight-F (PS), Quorum (Q), Determine-Malaria (DM). In a laboratory study, designed to test absolute detection limits, Plasmodium falciparum-infected blood was diluted with uninfected blood to known parasite concentrations ranging from 500 to 0.1 parasites per microlitre (P/microL). The 50% detection limits were: ICT1, 3.28; ICT2, 4.86; KAT, 6.36; MM, 9.37; CB, 11.42; DM, 12.40; Q, 16.98; PS, 20; AC, 31.15 and OP, 91.16 P/microL. A field study was carried out to test post-treatment specificity. Blood samples from malaria patients were tested with all products (except AC and DM) on the day of treatment and 3 and 7 days thereafter, against a gold standard of microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). OP and PS produced fewer false-positive results on day 7 (18 and 19%, respectively) than the other rapid tests (38-56%). However, microscopy, PCR, OP and PS disagreed largely as to which individuals remained positive. The tests were further compared with regard to general specificity, particularly cross-reactivity with rheumatoid factor, speed, simplicity, their ability to detect other species, storage requirements and general presentation.