Photo-based External Quality Assessment of Malaria rapid diagnostic tests in a non-endemic setting

Molecular tools are crucial for malaria elimination

The eradication of Plasmodium parasites, responsible for malaria, is a daunting global public health task. It requires a comprehensive approach that addresses symptomatic, asymptomatic, and submicroscopic cases. Overcoming this challenge relies on harnessing the power of molecular diagnostic tools, as traditional methods like microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests fall short in detecting low parasitaemia, contributing to the persistence of malaria transmission. By precisely identifying patients of all types and effectively characterizing malaria parasites, molecular tools may emerge as indispensable allies in the pursuit of malaria elimination. Furthermore, molecular tools can also provide valuable insights into parasite diversity, drug resistance patterns, and transmission dynamics, aiding in the implementation of targeted interventions and surveillance strategies. In this review, we explore the significance of molecular tools in the pursuit of malaria elimination, shedding light on their key contributions and potential impact on public health.

Rapid diagnostic testing for syphilis in Arctic communities (the STAR study): a multisite prospective field diagnostic accuracy study in an intended-use setting

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the field diagnostic accuracy of a syphilis rapid test (RDT), using serum and whole blood by non-laboratorians in two Canadian Arctic communities.

METHODS

We implemented a multisite prospective field evaluation wherein patients were screened by an RDT containing treponemal and non-treponemal components (Chembio DPP® Syphilis Screen & Confirm) between January 2020 and December 2021. Venous whole blood and serum were collected for rapid testing and compared with laboratory-based serology reference testing using a reverse sequence algorithm of treponemal and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) testing.

RESULTS

Overall, 135 whole blood and 139 serum specimens were collected from 161 participants during clinical encounters. Treponemal-RDT sensitivity against a treponemal-reference standard (38/161 confirmed cases) was similar for serum (78% [95% CI: 61-90%]) and whole blood (81% [95% CI: 63-93%]). In those with RPR titres ≥1:8 (i.e. suggestive of recent/active infection), sensitivity increased to 93% (95% CI: 77-99%) for serum and 92% (95% CI: 73-99%) for whole blood. Treponemal-RDT specificity was excellent (99% [95% CI: 95-100%]) for both specimen types. Non-treponemal-RDT sensitivity against RPR was 94% (95% CI: 80-99%) for serum and 79% (95% CI: 60-92%) for whole blood. Sensitivity increased to 100% (95% CI: 88-100%) for serum and 92% (95% CI: 73-99%) for whole blood when RPR titres ≥1:8. RDT performance with whole blood was similar to that with serum.

DISCUSSION

Non-laboratorians using the RDT accurately identified individuals with infectious syphilis under real-world conditions in an intended-use setting at the point of care. Implementing the RDT can eliminate treatment delays and may enhance disease control.

Were SARS-CoV-2 self-tests used for their intended purpose? The experience in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Self-testing has been promoted as a means of increasing COVID-19 test coverage. In Belgium, self-testing was recommended as a complement to the formal, provider-administered indications, such as out of courtesy before meeting others and when feared to be infected. More than a year after the introduction of self-testing their place in the test strategy was evaluated.

METHODS

We assessed trends in the number of self-tests sold, the number of positive self-tests reported, the proportion sold self-tests/total tests, and the proportion of all positive tests that were confirmed self-tests. To evaluate the reason why people use self-tests, we used the results of two online surveys among members of the general population: one among 27,397 people, held in April 2021, and one among 22,354 people, held in December 2021.

RESULTS

The use of self-tests became substantial from end 2021 onwards. In the period mid-November 2021 - end-of-June 2022, the average proportion of reported sold self-tests to all COVID-19 tests was 37% and 14% of all positive tests were positive self-tests. In both surveys, the main reported reasons for using a self-test were having symptoms (34% of users in April 2021 and 31% in December 2021) and after a risk contact (27% in both April and December). Moreover, the number of self-tests sold, and the number of positive self-tests reported closely followed the same trend as the provider-administered tests in symptomatic people and high risk-contacts, which reinforces the hypothesis that they were mainly used for these two indications.

CONCLUSIONS

From end 2021 onwards, self-testing covered a significant part of COVID-19 testing in Belgium, which increased without doubt the testing coverage. However, the available data seem to indicate that self-testing was mostly used for indications outside of official recommendations. If and how this affected the control of the epidemic remains unknown.

Adequacy of Serial Self-performed SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Testing for Longitudinal Mass Screening in the Workplace

IMPORTANCE

Longitudinal mass testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) for serial screening of asymptomatic persons has been proposed for preventing SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. The feasibility of this strategy relies on accurate self-testing.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT testing in the workplace, in terms of the frequency of correct execution of procedural steps and accurate interpretation of the range of possible RADT results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective repeated cross-sectional study was performed from July to October 2021 at businesses with at least 2 active cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Montreal, Canada. Participants included untrained persons in their workplace, not meeting Public Health quarantine criteria (ie, required quarantine for 10 days after a moderate-risk contact with someone infected with SARS-CoV-2). Interpretation and performance were compared between participants who received instructions provided by the manufacturer vs those who received modified instructions that were informed by the most frequent or most critical errors we observed. Data were analyzed from October to November 2021.

EXPOSURES

RADT testing using a modified quick reference guide compared with the original manufacturer's instructions.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the difference in correctly interpreted RADT results. Secondary outcomes included difference in proportions of correctly performed procedural steps. Additional analyses, assessed among participants with 2 self-testing visits, compared the second self-test visit with the first self-test visit using the same measures.

RESULTS

Overall, 1892 tests were performed among 647 participants, of whom 278 participants (median [IQR] age, 43 [31-55] years; 156 [56.1%] men) had at least 1 self-testing visit. For self-test visit 1, significantly better accuracy in test interpretation was observed among participants using the modified quick reference guide than those using the manufacturer's instructions for reading results that were weak positive (64 of 115 participants [55.6%] vs 20 of 163 participants [12.3%]; difference, 43.3 [95% CI, 33.0-53.8] percentage points), positive (103 of 115 participants [89.6%] vs 84 of 163 participants [51.5%]; difference, 38.1 [95% CI, 28.5-47.5] percentage points), strong positive (219 of 229 participants [95.6%] vs 274 of 326 participants [84.0%]; difference, 11.6 [95% CI, 6.8-16.3] percentage points), and invalid (200 of 229 participants [87.3%] vs 252 of 326 participants [77.3%]; difference, 10.0 [95% CI, 3.8-16.3] percentage points). Use of the modified guide was associated with improvements on self-test visit 2 for results that were weak positive (difference, 15.4 [95% CI, 0.7-30.1] percentage points), positive (difference, 19.0 [95% CI, 7.2-30.9] percentage points), and invalid (difference, 8.0 [95% CI, 0.8-15.4] percentage points). For procedural steps identified as critical for test validity, adherence to procedural testing steps did not differ meaningfully according to instructions provided or reader experience.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT in an intended-use setting, a modified quick reference guide was associated with significantly improved accuracy in RADT interpretations.

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay for the diagnosis of imported malaria: a narrative review

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is a molecular method to detect malaria recently introduced in the market. LAMP is simple to perform and does not require advanced equipment and training thus satisfying the qualification as a point-of-care diagnostic screening test. In this narrative review, we focus on the role of LAMP for malaria diagnosis in non-endemic settings. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using the following search terms: 'Malaria LAMP' in combination with 'imported malaria' or 'travellers' malaria' or 'non-endemic setting' or 'non-endemic region' or 'malaria screening' or 'malaria diagnosis'. References of each article were also reviewed for possible studies or reports not identified in our search. Overall, 18 studies encompassing 6289 tested samples with 1663 confirmed malaria diagnoses were retrieved. Most of these studies (13/18, 72.2%) were conducted in Europe, and almost half were retrospective. Fourteen studies (77.8%) employed real-time or nested-polymerase chain reaction as the reference method for confirming malaria diagnosis. Sensitivity of LAMP ranged from 93.9 to 100% and specificity from 93.8 to 100% with a negative predictive value of 99.6%-100%. The rate of reported invalid results requiring repeat of the test varied from 0.01% to 5.7%, but they were solved in the majority of cases with a secondary analysis. In non-endemic countries the adoption of LAMP malaria assay as the screening test for malaria diagnosis seems to perform better than conventional methods. However, blood microscopy remains essential to either identify Plasmodium species and quantify parasitaemia and adequately managing malaria cases.

Malaria diagnosis in a malaria non-endemic high-resource country: high variation of diagnostic strategy in clinical laboratories in the Netherlands

Background

Microscopic examination of thick and thin blood films is the gold standard in current guidelines for the diagnosis of malaria, but guidelines do not uniformly agree on which combination of other methods should be used and when.

Methods

Three questionnaires were sent between March 2018 and September 2019 to laboratories subscribing to the external quality assessment scheme for the diagnosis of blood and intestinal parasites of the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessment in Medical Laboratories in order to investigate how much variation in the laboratory diagnosis of malaria between different clinical laboratories is present in the Netherlands.

Results

The questionnaires were partially or fully completed by 67 of 77 (87%) laboratories. Only 9 laboratories reported 10 or more malaria positive patients per year. Most laboratories use a different diagnostic strategy, within office versus outside office hours depending on the screening assay result. Within office hours, 62.5% (35/56) of the responding laboratories perform an immunochromatographic test (ICT) in combination with microscopic examination of thick and thin blood films without additional examinations, such as Quantitative Buffy Coat and/or rtPCR analysis. Outside office hours 85.7% (48/56) of laboratories use an ICT as single screening assay and positive results are immediately confirmed by thick and thin blood films without additional examinations (89.6%, 43/48). In case of a negative ICT result outside office hours, 70.8% (34/48) of the laboratories perform microscopic examination of the thick film the next morning and 22.9% (11/48) confirm the negative ICT result immediately. Furthermore, substantial differences were found in the microscopic examinations of thick and thin blood films; the staining, theoretical sensitivity of the thick film and determination of parasitaemia.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated a remarkably high variation between laboratories in both their diagnostic strategy as well as their methods for microscopic examination for the diagnosis of malaria in a clinical setting, despite existing national and international guidelines. While the impact of these variations on the accuracy of the diagnosis of malaria is yet unknown, these findings should stimulate clinical laboratories to critically review their own diagnostic strategy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-021-03889-7.