BackgroundThe present study evaluated CareStart pLDH Malaria, a three-band rapid diagnostic test detecting Plasmodium falciparum-specific parasite lactate dehydrogenase (Pf-pLDH) and pan Plasmodium-specific pLDH (pan-pLDH) in a reference setting.MethodsCareStart pLDH was retrospectively and prospectively assessed with a panel of stored (n = 498) and fresh (n = 77) blood samples obtained in international travelers suspected of malaria. Both panels comprised all four Plasmodium species; the retrospective panel comprised also Plasmodium negative samples. The reference method was microscopy corrected by PCR. The prospective panel was run side-to-side with OptiMAL (Pf-pLDH/pan-pLDH) and SDFK60 (histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP-2)/pan-pLDH).ResultsIn the retrospective evaluation, overall sensitivity for P. falciparum samples (n = 247) was 94.7%, reaching 98.7% for parasite densities > 1,000/μl. Most false negative results occurred among samples with pure gametocytaemia (2/12, 16.7%) and at parasite densities ≤ 100/μl (7/12, 58.3%). None of the Plasmodium negative samples (n = 96) showed visible test lines. Sensitivities for Plasmodium vivax (n = 70), Plasmodium ovale (n = 69) and Plasmodium malariae (n = 16) were 74.3%, 31.9% and 25.0% respectively. Wrong species identification occurred in 10 (2.5%) samples and was mainly due to P. vivax samples reacting with the Pf-pLDH test line. Overall, Pf-pLDH test lines showed higher line intensities compared to the pan-pLDH lines (67.9% and 23.0% medium and strong line intensities for P. falciparum). In the prospective panel (77 Plasmodium-positive samples), CareStart pLDH showed higher sensitivities for P. falciparum compared to OptiMAL (p = 0.008), lower sensitivities for P. falciparum as compare to SDFK60 (although not reaching statistical significance, p = 0.08) and higher sensitivities for P. ovale compared to both OptiMAL (p = 0.03) and SDFK60 (p = 0.01). Inter-observer and test reproducibility were good to excellent.ConclusionCareStart pLDH performed excellent for the detection of P. falciparum, well for P. vivax, but poor for P. ovale and P. malariae.

BackgroundRapid diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum infections is important because of the potentially fatal complications. SDFK90 is a recently marketed malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) targeting both histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) and P. falciparum-specific Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (Pf-pLDH). The present study evaluated its diagnostic accuracy.MethodsSDFK90 was tested against a panel of stored whole blood samples (n= 591) obtained from international travellers suspected of malaria, including the four human Plasmodium species and Plasmodium negative samples. Microscopy was used as a reference method, corrected by PCR for species diagnosis. In addition, SDFK90 was challenged against 59 P. falciparum samples with parasite density ≥4% to assess the prozone effect (no or weak visible line on initial testing and a higher intensity upon 10-fold dilution).ResultsOverall sensitivity for the detection of P. falciparum was 98.5% and reached 99.3% at parasite densities >100/μl. There were significantly more PfHRP2 lines visible compared to Pf-pLDH (97.3% vs 86.9%), which was mainly absent at parasite densities <100/μl. Specificity of SDFK90 was 98.8%. No lot-to-lot variability was observed (p = 1.00) and test results were reproducible. A prozone effect was seen for the PfHRP2 line in 14/59 (23.7%) P. falciparum samples tested, but not for the Pf-pLDH line. Few minor shortcomings were observed in the kit’s packaging and information insert.ConclusionsSDFK90 performed excellent for P. falciparum diagnosis. The combination of PfHRP2 and Pf-pLDH ensures a low detection threshold and counters potential problems of PfHRP2 detection such as gene deletions and the prozone effect.

IntroductionIn the past malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for self-diagnosis by travelers were considered suboptimal due to poor performance. Nowadays RDTs for self-diagnosis are marketed and available through the internet. The present study assessed RDT products marketed for self-diagnosis for diagnostic accuracy and quality of labeling, content and instructions for use (IFU).MethodsDiagnostic accuracy of eight RDT products was assessed with a panel of stored whole blood samples comprising the four Plasmodium species (n = 90) as well as Plasmodium negative samples (n = 10). IFUs were assessed for quality of description of procedure and interpretation and for lay-out and readability level. Errors in packaging and content were recorded.ResultsTwo products gave false-positive test lines in 70% and 80% of Plasmodium negative samples, precluding their use. Of the remaining products, 4/6 had good to excellent sensitivity for the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum (98.2%–100.0%) and Plasmodium vivax (93.3%–100.0%). Sensitivity for Plasmodium ovale and Plasmodium malariae diagnosis was poor (6.7%–80.0%). All but one product yielded false-positive test lines after reading beyond the recommended reading time. Problems with labeling (not specifying target antigens (n = 3), and content (desiccant with no humidity indicator (n = 6)) were observed. IFUs had major shortcomings in description of test procedure and interpretation, poor readability and lay-out and user-unfriendly typography. Strategic issues (e.g. the need for repeat testing and reasons for false-negative tests) were not addressed in any of the IFUs.ConclusionDiagnostic accuracy of RDTs for self-diagnosis was variable, with only 4/8 RDT products being reliable for the diagnosis of P. falciparum and P. vivax, and none for P. ovale and P. malariae. RDTs for self-diagnosis need improvements in IFUs (content and user-friendliness), labeling and content before they can be considered for self-diagnosis by the traveler.