| Literature DB >> 22114867 |
Amed Ouattara1, Safiatou Doumbo, Renion Saye, Abdoul H Beavogui, Boubacar Traoré, Abdoulaye Djimdé, Amadou Niangaly, Kassoum Kayentao, Mouctar Diallo, Ogobara K Doumbo, Mahamadou A Thera.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malaria is a major public health problem in Mali and diagnosis is typically based on microscopy. Microscopy requires a well trained technician, a reliable power source, a functioning microscope and adequate supplies. The scarcity of resources of community health centres (CHC) does not allow for such a significant investment in only one aspect of malaria control. In this context, Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs) may improve case management particularly in remote areas.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22114867 PMCID: PMC3256124 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-345
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Distribution of study patients by study site and sex.
| Study site | Female | Male | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faladie | 111 | 154 | 265 |
| Gabriel Toure Hospital | 53 | 73 | 126 |
| Point G Hospital | 68 | 84 | 152 |
| Kolle | 51 | 29 | 80 |
| District 5 medical centre | 102 | 0 | 102 |
| Total | 385 | 340 | 725 |
Figure 1Study profile of study patients visit at study site. OptiMal-IT, thick smear test and drug efficacy follow-up outcome.
Distribution of thick smear and OptiMal-IT malaria positive cases by study site
| Study site | Thick smear | OptiMal-IT | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Faladie | 266 (78.6) | 263 (77.6) | 0.78 |
| Gabriel Toure Hospital | 104 (64.4) | 104 (74) | 0.13 |
| Point G Hospital | 151 (26.5) | 137 (30.7) | 0.43 |
| Kolle | 78 (84.6) | 75 (81.3) | 0.58 |
| District 5 medical centre | 97 (11.3) | 100 (11.9) | 0.90 |
Levels of parasitological and clinical resistance determined by thick smear
| Level of resistance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thick smear | 9 (6) | 17 (12) | 34 (23) | 82 (58) |
ETF; Early treatment failure, LTF; Late treatment failure, LPF; Late parasitological failure, ACPR; Adequate clinical and parasitological response.
Diagnostic values of OptiMal-IT compared to thick smear as reference technique.
| Thick smear | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OptiMal-IT positive | 379 | 13 | 97.2 | 95.4 | 96.7 | 96.1 | 58.2 |
| OptiMal-IT negative | 11 | 271 | |||||
| Frequency of positive (%) | 56.5 | ||||||
*PPP; Positive predictive value; NPV; +Negative predictive value
Relationship between Plasmodium falciparum parasites density and OptiMal-IT
| Parasitemia per mm3 of blood | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OptiMal-IT positive | 41 (89.1) | 27 (100) | 22 (100) | 259 (100) |
| OptiMal-IT negative | 5 (15.9) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Figure 2Dynamics of OptiMal-IT test positivity during patient follow-up after a malaria treatment. The day of follow-up is on the × axis and the proportion of positive cases on the y axis. Results from both tests were comparable during follow-up except for day 7 when the proportion of cases detected by OptiMal-IT was statistically higher compared to the proportion observed with thick smear
OptiMal-IT test approval by health care providers
| Perception of test quality | Number of respondents | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processing | Easy | 718 | 99.3 |
| Acceptable | 5 | 0.7 | |
| Difficult | 0 | 0 | |
| Handling and storage | Good | 708 | 99.2 |
| Acceptable | 5 | 0.7 | |
| Poor | 1 | 0.1 | |
| Prior knowledge about the test | Yes | 528 | 77.8 |
| No | 151 | 22.2 |