Field evaluation of the ICT Malaria P.f./P.v. immunochromatographic test in India

A scoping review on the field validation and implementation of rapid diagnostic tests for vector-borne and other infectious diseases of poverty in urban areas

BACKGROUND

Health personnel face challenges in diagnosing vector-borne and other diseases of poverty in urban settings. There is a need to know what rapid diagnostic technologies are available, have been properly assessed, and are being implemented to improve control of these diseases in the urban context. This paper characterizes evidence on the field validation and implementation in urban areas of rapid diagnostics for vector-borne diseases and other diseases of poverty.

MAIN BODY

A scoping review was conducted. Peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched using terms describing the targeted infectious diseases, diagnostics evaluations, rapid tests, and urban setting. The review was limited to studies published between 2000 and 2016 in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were refined post hoc to identify relevant literature regardless of study design and geography. A total of 179 documents of the 7806 initially screened were included in the analysis. Malaria (n = 100) and tuberculosis (n = 47) accounted for the majority of studies that reported diagnostics performance, impact, and implementation outcomes. Fewer studies, assessing mainly performance, were identified for visceral leishmaniasis (n = 9), filariasis and leptospirosis (each n = 5), enteric fever and schistosomiasis (each n = 3), dengue and leprosy (each n = 2), and Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis, and cholera (each n = 1). Reported sensitivity of rapid tests was variable depending on several factors. Overall, specificities were high (> 80%), except for schistosomiasis and cholera. Impact and implementation outcomes, mainly acceptability and cost, followed by adoption, feasibility, and sustainability of rapid tests are being evaluated in the field. Challenges to implementing rapid tests range from cultural to technical and administrative issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid diagnostic tests for vector-borne and other diseases of poverty are being used in the urban context with demonstrated impact on case detection. However, most evidence comes from malaria rapid diagnostics, with variable results. While rapid tests for tuberculosis and visceral leishmaniasis require further implementation studies, more evidence on performance of current tests or development of new alternatives is needed for dengue, Chagas disease, filariasis, leptospirosis, enteric fever, human African trypanosomiasis, schistosomiasis and cholera.

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.