Secondary analysis of malaria rapid diagnostic tests from rounds 5-8 of WHO product testing with a focus on false-negative results.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Xu B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8496075 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Secondary analysis of malaria rapid diagnostic tests from rounds 5-8 of WHO product testing with a focus on false-negative results.
Xu Biao B Tu Bo B Chu Fang F Jalloh Mohamed M Mu Jin-Song JS Zheng Jun-Jie JJ Chen Wei-Wei WW
Military Medical Research 20211007 1
Despite the widespread use of malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in clinical practice, there are a lot of challenges. We conducted a secondary analysis of 129 malaria RDT data from rounds 5-8 of the World Health Organization (WHO) product testing summary and discuss the causes of false-negative (FN) results with a focus on low parasite density, improper RDT storage, operation and interpretation, and plasmodium falciparum with a pfhrp2/3 gene deletion. The results demonstrated that the malaria R ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The majority of Plasmodium falciparum malaria diagnoses in Africa are made using rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect histidine-rich protein 2. Increasing reports of false-negative RDT results due to parasites with deletions of the pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 genes (pfhrp2/3) raise concern about existing malaria diagnostic strategies. We previously identified pfhrp2-negative parasites among asymptomatic children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), but their impact on diagnosis of symptomatic malaria is unknown. We performed a cross-sectional study of false-negative RDTs in symptomatic subjects in 2017. Parasites were characterized by microscopy; RDT; pfhrp2/3 genotyping and species-specific PCR assays; a bead-based immunoassay for Plasmodium antigens; and/or whole-genome sequencing. Among 3627 symptomatic subjects, 427 (11.8%) had RDT-/microscopy + results. Parasites from eight (0.2%) samples were initially classified as putative pfhrp2/3 deletions by PCR, but antigen testing and whole-genome sequencing confirmed the presence of intact genes. 56.8% of subjects had PCR-confirmed malaria. Non-falciparum co-infection with P. falciparum was common (13.2%). Agreement between PCR and HRP2-based RDTs was satisfactory (Cohen's kappa = 0.66) and superior to microscopy (0.33). Symptomatic malaria due to pfhrp2/3-deleted P. falciparum was not observed. Ongoing HRP2-based RDT use is appropriate for the detection of falciparum malaria in the DRC.
| S-EPMC7985209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used for malaria diagnosis, but test performance and the factors that lead to failure of Plasmodium ovale detection are not well understood. In this study, three pLDH-based RDTs were evaluated using cases in China that originated in Africa. The sensitivity of Wondfo Pf/Pan, CareStart pLDH PAN and SD BIOLINE Pf/Pan in P. ovale detection was 70, 55 and 18%, respectively. CareStart was worse at detecting P. o. curtisi (36.5%) than at detecting P. o. wallikeri (75.0%), and SD could not detect P. o. curtisi. The overall detection ratio of all three RDTs decreased with parasite density and pLDH concentration. Wondfo, CareStart and SD detected only 75.0, 78.1 and 46.9% of the P. ovale cases, respectively, even when the parasitemia were higher than 5000 parasites/μL. Subspecies of P. ovale should be considered while to improve RDT quality for P. ovale diagnosis to achieve the goal of malaria elimination.
| S-EPMC6428349 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lymphedema is the chronic enlargement of tissue due to inadequate lymphatic function. Diagnosis is made by history and physical examination and confirmed with lymphoscintigraphy. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of lymphoscintigraphy for the diagnosis of lymphedema and to determine characteristics of patients with false-negative tests.Individuals referred to our lymphedema program with "lymphedema" between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed. Subjects were assessed by history, physical examination, and lymphoscintigraphy. Patient age at presentation, duration of lymphedema, location of disease, gender, previous infections, and lymphedema type were analyzed.The study included 227 patients (454 limbs); lymphedema was diagnosed clinically in 169 subjects and confirmed by lymphoscintigraphy in 162 (117 primary, 45 secondary; 96% sensitivity). Fifty-eight patients were thought to have a condition other than lymphedema, and all had negative lymphoscintigrams (100% specificity). A subgroup analysis of the 7 individuals with lymphedema clinically, but normal lymphoscintigrams, showed that all had primary lymphedema; duration of disease and infection history were not different between true-positive and false-negative lymphoscintigram results (P = 0.5). Two patients with a false-negative test underwent repeat lymphoscintigraphy, which then showed lymphatic dysfunction consistent with lymphedema.Lymphoscintigraphy is very sensitive and specific for lymphedema. All patients with false-negative studies had primary lymphedema. A patient with a high clinical suspicion of lymphedema and a normal lymphoscintigram should be treated conservatively for the disease and undergo repeat lymphoscintigraphy.
| S-EPMC5548565 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: In endemic settings, diagnosis of malaria increasingly relies on the use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). False positivity of such RDTs is poorly documented, although it is especially relevant in those infections that resemble malaria, such as human African trypanosomiasis (HAT). We therefore examined specificity of malaria RDT products among patients infected with Trypanosoma brucei gambiense. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Blood samples of 117 HAT patients and 117 matched non-HAT controls were prospectively collected in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Reference malaria diagnosis was based on real-time PCR. Ten commonly used malaria RDT products were assessed including three two-band and seven three-band products, targeting HRP-2, Pf-pLDH and/or pan-pLDH antigens. Rheumatoid factor was determined in PCR negative subjects. Specificity of the 10 malaria RDT products varied between 79.5 and 100% in HAT-negative controls and between 11.3 and 98.8% in HAT patients. For seven RDT products, specificity was significantly lower in HAT patients compared to controls. False positive reactions in HAT were mainly observed for pan-pLDH test lines (specificities between 13.8 and 97.5%), but also occurred frequently for the HRP-2 test line (specificities between 67.9 and 98.8%). The Pf-pLDH test line was not affected by false-positive lines in HAT patients (specificities between 97.5 and 100%). False positivity was not associated to rheumatoid factor, detected in 7.6% of controls and 1.2% of HAT patients. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Specificity of some malaria RDT products in HAT was surprisingly low, and constitutes a risk for misdiagnosis of a fatal but treatable infection. Our results show the importance to assess RDT specificity in non-targeted infections when evaluating diagnostic tests.
| S-EPMC3636101 | biostudies-other
Project description:Since 2010, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used to detect malaria. The Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Malaria Research performed lot testing (LT) according to WHO procedures since 2016. Lot testing is performed to evaluate the lot-to-lot variation in performance of malaria RDTs. Four sets of positive quality control (QC) panels for P. falciparum (Pf) and P. vivax (Pv) and 10 negative panels tested RDTs. RDTs were reported as pass, failed, or deferred on the basis of WHO criteria. In the past 5 years, 275 lots containing 15,488 RDT kits for malaria diagnosis were subjected to LT. The monovalent RDTs (n = 1,216), based on either Pf histidine rich protein 2 (HRP2) or Pan-Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (Pan-pLDH) antigens, showed 90.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas RDTs based on HRP2 + Pan-pLDH or HRP2 + pLDH (n = 13,924) had sensitivity 95.6% and specificity 99.5%, respectively. RDTs based on PfHRP2 + Pv-pLDH + Pan-pLDH (n = 348) had 100% sensitivity and specificity. In a comparison between HRP2 + pLDH or HRP2 + Pan-pLDH to HRP2 + pLDH + Pan-pLDH RDTs, it was found that the sensitivity of PfHRP2 with Pan-pLDH RDTs (n = 2,382) was only 83%. Of the 275 lots analyzed, 15 lots of PfHRP2 with Pan-pLDH were deferred. The QC panel for Pf revealed a faint Pan band in the tested lots, which is a cause for concern. The results of deferred lots were reported to concerned government agencies. Quality-compromised RDTs may lead to an incorrect diagnosis. It is critical to have a QC system in place for effective malaria management.
| S-EPMC10919188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMalaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can produce false positive (FP) results in patients with human African trypanosomiasis and rheumatoid factor (RF), but specificity against other infectious agents and immunological factors is largely unknown. Low diagnostic specificity caused by cross-reactivity may lead to over-estimates of the number of malaria cases and over-use of antimalarial drugs, at the cost of not diagnosing and treating the true underlying condition.MethodsData from the WHO Malaria RDT Product Testing Programme was analysed to assess FP rates of 221 RDTs against four infectious agents (Chagas, dengue, Leishmaniasis and Schistosomiasis) and four immunological factors (anti-nuclear antibody, human anti-mouse antibody (HAMA), RF and rapid plasma regain). Only RDTs with a FP rate against clean negative samples less than 10% were included. Paired t-tests were used to compare product-specific FP rates on clean negative samples and samples containing non-Plasmodium infectious agents and immunological factors.ResultsForty (18%) RDTs showed no FP results against any tested infectious agent or immunological factor. In the remaining RDTs significant and clinically relevant increases in FP rates were observed for samples containing HAMA and RF (P<0.001). There were significant correlations between product-matched FP rates for RF and HAMA on all RDT test bands (P<0.001), and FP rates for each infectious agent and immunological factor were also correlated between test bands of combination RDTs (P≤0.002).ConclusionsFalse positive results against non-Plasmodium infectious agents and immunological factors does not appear to be a universal property of malaria RDTs. However, since many malaria RDTs have elevated FP rates against HAMA and RF positive samples practitioners may need to consider the possibility of false positive results for malaria in patients with conditions that stimulate HAMA or RF.
| S-EPMC5951549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe performance of different malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) may be influenced by transmission intensity and by the length of time each test requires to become negative after treatment and patient's recovery.MethodsResults of three RDTs (two HRP2 and one pLDH antigen-based tests) were compared to blood smear microscopy (the gold standard method) in children under 5 years of age living in a high versus low malaria intensity setting in southwestern Uganda. In each setting, 212 children, who tested positive by at least one RDT and by microscopy, were treated with artemether-lumefantrine. RDTs and microscopy were then repeated at fixed intervals to estimate each test's time to negativity after treatment and patient recovery.ResultsIn the two settings, sensitivities ranged from 98.4 to 99.2 % for the HRP2 tests and 94.7 to 96.1 % for the pLDH test. Specificities were 98.9 and 98.8 % for the HRP2 tests and 99.7 % for the pLDH test in the low-transmission setting and 79.7, 80.7 and 93.9 %, respectively, in the high-transmission setting. Median time to become negative was 35-42 or more days for the HRP2 tests and 2 days for the pLDH test.ConclusionsHigh transmission contexts and a long time to become negative resulted in considerably reduced specificities for the HRP2 tests. Choice of RDT for low- versus high-transmission settings should balance risks and benefits of over-treatment versus missing malaria cases.Trial registrationRegistry number at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01325974.
| S-EPMC5050565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is diagnosed via detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rtRT-PCR). Performance of many SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR assays is not entirely known due to the lack of a gold standard. We sought to evaluate the false negative rate (FNR) and sensitivity of our laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR targeting the envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (RdRp) genes.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR results at the Public Health Laboratory (Alberta, Canada) from January 21 to April 18, 2020 were reviewed to identify patients with an initial negative rtRT-PCR followed by a positive result on repeat testing within 14 days (defined as discordant results). Negative samples from these discordant specimens were re-tested using three alternate rtRT-PCR assays (targeting the E gene and N1/N2 regions of the nucleocapsid genes) to assess for false negative (FN) results.ResultsDuring the time period specified, 95,919 patients (100,001 samples) were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of these, 49 patients were found to have discordant results including 49 positive and 52 negative swabs. Repeat testing of 52 negative swabs found five FNs (from five separate patients). Assuming 100% specificity of the diagnostic assay, the FNR and sensitivity in this group of patients with discordant testing was 9.3% (95% CI 1.5-17.0%) and 90.7% (95% CI 82.6-98.9%) respectively.ConclusionsStudies to understand the FNR of routinely used assays are important to confirm adequate clinical performance. In this study, most FN results were due to low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in patients with multiple specimens collected during different stages of infection. Post-test clinical evaluation of each patient is advised to ensure that rtRT-PCR results are not the only factor in excluding COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7794619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:After lifting the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and opening businesses, screening is essential to prevent the spread of the virus. Group testing could be a promising candidate for screening to save time and resources. However, due to the high false-negative rate (FNR) of the RT-PCR diagnostic test, we should be cautious about using group testing because a group's false-negative result identifies all the individuals in a group as uninfected. Repeating the test is the best solution to reduce the FNR, and repeats should be integrated with the group-testing method to increase the sensitivity of the test. The simplest way is to replicate the test twice for each group (the 2Rgt method). In this paper, we present a new method for group testing (the groupMix method), which integrates two repeats in the test. Then we introduce the 2-stage sequential version of both the groupMix and the 2Rgt methods. We compare these methods analytically regarding the sensitivity and the average number of tests. The tradeoff between the sensitivity and the average number of tests should be considered when choosing the best method for the screening strategy. We applied the groupMix method to screening 263 people and identified 2 infected individuals by performing 98 tests. This method achieved a 63% saving in the number of tests compared to individual testing. Our experimental results show that in COVID-19 screening, the viral load can be low, and the group size should not be more than 6; otherwise, the FNR increases significantly. A web interface of the groupMix method is publicly available for laboratories to implement this method.
| S-EPMC8170512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurveillance programmes often use malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to determine the proportion of the population carrying parasites in their peripheral blood to assess the malaria transmission intensity. Despite an increasing number of reports on false-negative and false-positive RDT results, there is a lack of systematic quality control activities for RDTs deployed in malaria surveillance programmes.MethodsThe diagnostic performance of field-deployed RDTs used for malaria surveys was assessed by retrospective molecular analysis of the blood retained on the tests.ResultsOf the 2865 RDTs that were collected in 2018 on Bioko Island and analysed in this study, 4.7% had a false-negative result. These false-negative RDTs were associated with low parasite density infections. In 16.6% of analysed samples, masked pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions were identified, in which at least one Plasmodium falciparum strain carried a gene deletion. Among all positive RDTs analysed, 28.4% were tested negative by qPCR and therefore considered to be false-positive. Analysing the questionnaire data collected from the participants, this high proportion of false-positive RDTs could be explained by P. falciparum histidine rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) antigen persistence after recent malaria treatment.ConclusionMalaria surveillance depending solely on RDTs needs well-integrated quality control procedures to assess the extent and impact of reduced sensitivity and specificity of RDTs on malaria control programmes.
| S-EPMC8785039 | biostudies-literature