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

Abstract

BackgroundIn 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.ObjectivesTo 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 methodsWe 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 criteriaStudies 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 analysisFor 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 resultsWe 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 specificit...

Screening Accuracy for Aspiration Using Bedside Water Swallow Tests

“…32 Heterogeneity (measured by I 2 values) was reduced by stratifying WSTs by presentation method (ie, single sips, consecutive sips, progressive volume challenges) and by the patient's clinical response. To avoid bias of repeated analyses of the same patient, 33 we randomly selected a single outcome when studies reported multiple outcomes using the same index test. [34][35][36][37] Causes for heterogeneity were investigated using meta-regression via the MIDAS program 38 in Stata version 12.1 (StataCorp), with an a priori significance of P < .05.…”

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Plasmodium vivax Control

“…Good-quality RDTs capable of detecting both species have become increasingly available in areas where the two species coexist 45. The cost of RDTs has been declining over time46 with pan-specific tests available in the range of 1–2 U.S.…”

Analytical sensitivity of current best-in-class malaria rapid diagnostic tests

“…The performance of RDTs is very often analysed from the clinical point-of-view: the capacity of RDTs to identify correctly malaria positive and negative samples is evaluated in comparison to a reference method, such as light microscopy or PCR, and diagnostic sensitivity and specificity values are reported with associated confidence intervals [5, 6]. Little is known however, about the analytical performance of RDTs, especially the analytical sensitivity, which corresponds to the lowest detectable concentration of the target analyte.…”