60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      The APC waiver has been extended to also apply to manuscripts submitted until March 31, 2024.

      To submit to the journal, please click here.

      To learn more about AK Journals, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of two real-time PCR assays for the detection of malaria parasites from hemolytic blood samples – Short communication

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We compared the performance of an in-house and a commercial malaria polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay using freeze–thawed hemolytic blood samples.

          A total of 116 freeze–thawed ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) blood samples of patients with suspicion of malaria were analyzed by an in-house as well as by a commercially available real-time PCR.

          Concordant malaria negative PCR results were reported for 39 samples and malaria-positive PCR results for 67 samples. The in-house assay further detected one case of Plasmodium falciparum infection, which was negative in the commercial assay as well as five cases of P. falciparum malaria and three cases of Plasmodium vivax malaria, which showed sample inhibition in the commercial assay. The commercial malaria assay was positive in spite of a negative in-house PCR result in one case. In all concordant results, cycle threshold values of P. falciparum-positive samples were lower in the commercial PCR than in the in-house assay.

          Although Ct values of the commercial PCR kit suggest higher sensitivity in case of concordant results, it is prone to inhibition if it is applied to hemolytic freeze–thawed blood samples. The number of misidentifications was, however, identical for both real-time PCR assays.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Assessment of the prozone effect in malaria rapid diagnostic tests

          Background The prozone effect (or high doses-hook phenomenon) consists of false-negative or false-low results in immunological tests, due to an excess of either antigens or antibodies. Although frequently cited as a cause of false-negative results in malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), especially at high parasite densities of Plasmodium falciparum, it has been poorly documented. In this study, a panel of malaria RDTs was challenged with clinical samples with P. falciparum hyperparasitaemia (> 5% infected red blood cells). Methods Twenty-two RDT brands were tested with seven samples, both undiluted and upon 10 ×, 50 × and 100 × dilutions in NaCl 0.9%. The P. falciparum targets included histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP-2, n = 17) and P. falciparum-specific parasite lactate dehydrogenase (Pf-pLDH, n = 5). Test lines intensities were recorded in the following categories: negative, faint, weak, medium or strong. The prozone effect was defined as an increase in test line intensity of at least one category after dilution, if observed upon duplicate testing and by two readers. Results Sixteen of the 17 HRP-2 based RDTs were affected by prozone: the prozone effect was observed in at least one RDT sample/brand combination for 16/17 HRP-2 based RDTs in 6/7 samples, but not for any of the Pf-pLDH tests. The HRP-2 line intensities of the undiluted sample/brand combinations with prozone effect (n = 51) included a single negative (1.9%) and 29 faint and weak readings (56.9%). The other target lens (P. vivax-pLDH, pan-specific pLDH and aldolase) did not show a prozone effect. Conclusion This study confirms the prozone effect as a cause of false-negative HRP-2 RDTs in samples with hyperparasitaemia.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How useful is PCR in the diagnosis of malaria?

            Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are the most sensitive and specific method to detect malaria parasites, and have acknowledged value in research settings. However, the time lag between sample collection, transportation and processing, and dissemination of results back to the physician limits the usefulness of PCR in routine clinical practice. Furthermore, in most areas with malaria transmission, factors such as limited financial resources, persistent subclinical parasitaemia, inadequate laboratory infrastructures in the poorer, remote rural areas preclude PCR as a diagnostic method. Even in affluent, non-endemic countries, PCR is not a suitable method for routine use. Nonetheless, PCR could be clinically useful in selected situations.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

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

              Background In 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. Objectives To 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 methods We 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 criteria Studies 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 analysis For 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 results We 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' parasitaemia Eleven 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 parasitaemia Eight studies compared pLDH tests to microscopy; the average sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and 99% (95% CI 99% to 100%), respectively. Authors' conclusions RDTs designed to detect P. vivax specifically, whether alone or as part of a mixed infection, appear to be more accurate than older tests designed to distinguish P. falciparum malaria from non-falciparum malaria. Compared to microscopy, these tests fail to detect around 5% ofP. vivax cases. This Cochrane Review, in combination with other published information about in vitro test performance and stability in the field, can assist policy-makers to choose between the available RDTs. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Rapid tests for diagnosing malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax or other less common parasites This review summarises trials evaluating the accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for diagnosing malaria due to Plasmodium vivax or other non-falciparum species. After searching for relevant studies up to December 2013, we included 47 studies, enrolling 22,862 adults and children. What are rapid tests and why do they need to be able to distinguish Plasmodium vivax malaria RDTs are simple to use, point of care tests, suitable for use in rural settings by primary healthcare workers. RDTs work by using antibodies to detect malaria antigens in the patient's blood. A drop of blood is placed on the test strip where the antibodies and antigen combine to create a distinct line indicating a positive test. Malaria can be caused any one of five species of Plasmodium parasite, but P. falciparum and P. vivax are the most common. In some areas, RDTs need to be able to distinguish which species is causing the malaria symptoms as different species may require different treatments. Unlike P. falciparum, P. vivax has a liver stage which can cause repeated illness every few months unless it is treated with primaquine. The most common types of RDTs for P. vivax use two test lines in combination; one line specific to P. falciparum, and one line which can detect any species of Plasmodium. If the P. falciparum line is negative and the 'any species' line is positive, the illness is presumed to be due to P. vivax (but could also be caused by P. malariae, or P. ovale). More recently, RDTs have been developed which specifically test for P. vivax. What does the research say RDTs testing for non-falciparum malaria were very specific (range 98% to 100%) meaning that only 1% to 2% of patients who test positive would actually not have the disease. However, they were less sensitive (range 78% to 89%), meaning between 11% and 22% of people with non-falciparum malaria would actually get a negative test result. RDTs which specifically tested for P. vivax were more accurate with a specificity of 99% and a sensitivity of 95%, meaning that only 5% of people with P. vivax malaria would have a negative test result.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp)
                Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp)
                EUJMI
                European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology
                Akadémiai Kiadó (Budapest )
                2062-509X
                2062-8633
                18 June 2015
                June 2015
                : 5
                : 2
                : 159-163
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Tropical Medicine at the Bernhard Nocht Institute, German Armed Forces Hospital of Hamburg , Germany
                [2 ]Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine Hamburg , Germany
                [3 ]Institute for Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock , Germany
                Author notes
                * Department of Tropical Medicine at the Bernhard Nocht Institute, German Armed Forces Hospital of Hamburg, Bernhard Nocht street 74, D-20359 Hamburg, Germany; 004940/694728743; 004940/694728709; Frickmann@ 123456bni-hamburg.de
                Article
                10.1556/1886.2015.00006
                4500067
                e9bc2a44-c2a5-4e5d-ad69-ab902ac7d217
                © 2015, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 February 2015
                : 28 February 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 15, Pages: 5
                Categories
                Original Article

                malaria,pcr,test comparison,difficult sample matrix,freeze–thawed blood,molecular diagnostics,in-house,real-time

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log