Title
Diagnostic performance and comparison of ultrasensitive and conventional rapid diagnostic test, thick blood smear and quantitative PCR for detection of low-density Plasmodium falciparum infections during a controlled human malaria infection study in Equatorial Guinea
Date Issued
01 December 2022
Access level
open access
Resource Type
journal article
Author(s)
Mpina M.
Stabler T.C.
Schindler T.
Raso J.
Deal A.
Acuche Pupu L.
Nyakarungu E.
del Carmen Ovono Davis M.
Urbano V.
Mtoro A.
Hamad A.
Lopez M.S.A.
Pasialo B.
Eyang M.A.O.
Rivas M.R.
Falla C.C.
García G.A.
Momo J.C.
Saverino E.
Preston Church L.W.
Kim lee Sim B.
Manguire B.
Tanner M.
Maas C.
Abdulla S.
Billingsley P.F.
Hoffman S.L.
Jongo S.
Richie T.L.
Daubenberger C.A.
Medical Care Development International
Publisher(s)
BioMed Central Ltd
Abstract
Background: Progress towards malaria elimination has stagnated, partly because infections persisting at low parasite densities comprise a large reservoir contributing to ongoing malaria transmission and are difficult to detect. This study compared the performance of an ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test (uRDT) designed to detect low density infections to a conventional RDT (cRDT), expert microscopy using Giemsa-stained thick blood smears (TBS), and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) during a controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) study conducted in malaria exposed adults (NCT03590340). Methods: Blood samples were collected from healthy Equatoguineans aged 18–35 years beginning on day 8 after CHMI with 3.2 × 103 cryopreserved, infectious Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites (PfSPZ Challenge, strain NF54) administered by direct venous inoculation. qPCR (18s ribosomal DNA), uRDT (Alere™ Malaria Ag P.f.), cRDT [Carestart Malaria Pf/PAN (PfHRP2/pLDH)], and TBS were performed daily until the volunteer became TBS positive and treatment was administered. qPCR was the reference for the presence of Plasmodium falciparum parasites. Results: 279 samples were collected from 24 participants; 123 were positive by qPCR. TBS detected 24/123 (19.5% sensitivity [95% CI 13.1–27.8%]), uRDT 21/123 (17.1% sensitivity [95% CI 11.1–25.1%]), cRDT 10/123 (8.1% sensitivity [95% CI 4.2–14.8%]); all were 100% specific and did not detect any positive samples not detected by qPCR. TBS and uRDT were more sensitive than cRDT (TBS vs. cRDT p = 0.015; uRDT vs. cRDT p = 0.053), detecting parasitaemias as low as 3.7 parasites/µL (p/µL) (TBS and uRDT) compared to 5.6 p/µL (cRDT) based on TBS density measurements. TBS, uRDT and cRDT did not detect any of the 70/123 samples positive by qPCR below 5.86 p/µL, the qPCR density corresponding to 3.7 p/µL by TBS. The median prepatent periods in days (ranges) were 14.5 (10–20), 18.0 (15–28), 18.0 (15–20) and 18.0 (16–24) for qPCR, TBS, uRDT and cRDT, respectively; qPCR detected parasitaemia significantly earlier (3.5 days) than the other tests. Conclusions: TBS and uRDT had similar sensitivities, both were more sensitive than cRDT, and neither matched qPCR for detecting low density parasitaemia. uRDT could be considered an alternative to TBS in selected applications, such as CHMI or field diagnosis, where qualitative, dichotomous results for malaria infection might be sufficient.
Volume
21
Issue
1
Language
English
OCDE Knowledge area
Epidemiología
Medicina tropical
Subjects
Scopus EID
2-s2.0-85127067582
PubMed ID
Source
Malaria Journal
ISSN of the container
14752875
Source funding
Ministerio de Energía y Minas
Sponsor(s)
This work was supported by the National Malaria Control Program and the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare of Equatorial Guinea, and Medical Care Development International (MCDI) through the Bioko Island Malaria Elimination Project (BIMEP). In particular, we thank the entire Equatorial Guinea Malaria Vaccine Initiative (EGMVI) team for their efforts while conducting the clinical trial and CHMI. We would especially like to thank Marathon Oil, Noble Energy, AMPCO (Atlantic Methanol Production Company), and the Ministry of Mines and Energy of Equatorial Guinea for their continued funding and support for malaria control on Bioko Island.
This work was funded by the Bioko Island Malaria Elimination Program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Sources of information:
Directorio de Producción Científica
Scopus