| Literature DB >> 25522751 |
Zhiyong Zhou1, Rebecca Mans Mitchell, Julie Gutman, Ryan E Wiegand, Dyson A Mwandama, Don P Mathanga, Jacek Skarbinski, Ya Ping Shi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low malaria parasite densities in pregnancy are a diagnostic challenge. PCR provides high sensitivity and specificity in detecting low density of parasites, but cost and technical requirements limit its application in resources-limited settings. Pooling samples for PCR detection was explored to estimate prevalence of submicroscopic malaria infection in pregnant women at delivery. Previous work uses gold-standard based methods to calculate sensitivity and specificity of tests, creating a challenge when newer methodologies are substantially more sensitive than the gold standard. Thus prevalence was estimated using Bayesian latent class models (LCMs) in this study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25522751 PMCID: PMC4301903 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-13-509
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Figure 1Pooling strategy for DNA extraction and PCR screening of smear-negative samples from Malawi. A total of 617 smear-negative samples were used for pooling based on the histology data from the Malawian IPTp effectiveness study. The histology-positive group including acute (A), chronic (C), and past infections (P) by histology was divided into 36 pools with 5 DBS samples per pool. The histology-negative (no infection by histology) group was divided into 44 pools with 10 samples in each pool. Several pools were short one or extra one sample to accommodate all available samples into pools. Five histology-negative samples (N) were processed in the smaller pools due to misclassification. After first round PCR screening, individual DBSs from positive pools were extracted, and second round PCR assays were performed.
PCR results compared to histology findings
| Histological status | Overall | Peripheral | Placental |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCR (+)/total (%) | Positive/total (%) | Positive/total (%) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion of PCR positives in each histologic classification is presented for each sample type analysed: overall and by blood sources (peripheral or placental). Histologic results are separated into active infection (acute and chronic) and negative (past infection or no infection).
Test characteristics as calculated with histology as a gold standard
| Histology | Histology | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (+) | (-) | ||
|
| 28 | 24 | 52 |
|
| 11 | 554 | 565 |
|
| 39 | 578 | 617 |
|
| 71.8% | ||
|
| 95.8% |
Posterior probability table for latent class models (LCMs) using uniform priors for PCR characteristics and prevalence
| Value | Uniform a | Uniform | Uniform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placental b | Peripheral c | ||
| Sensitivity Histology (Median, CI) | 0.497 (0.414, 0.588) | 0.498 (0.410, 0.589) | 0.504 (0.397, 0.646) |
| Sensitivity PCR (Median, CI) | 0.960 (0.862, 0.998) | 0.961 (0.859, 0.998) | 0.953 (0.841, 0.998) |
| Specificity Histology (Median, CI) | 0.976 (0.963, 0.987) | 0.972 (0.955, 0.985) | 0.971 (0.951, 0.986) |
| Specificity PCR (Median, CI) | 0.991 (0.969, 0.9996) | 0.994 (0.974, 0.9997) | 0.964 (0.906, 0.998) |
| Prevalence Mozambique (Median, CI) | 0.368 (0.305, 0.436) | 0.370 (0.301, 0.437) | 0.334 (0.252, 0.412) |
| Prevalence Malawi (Median, CI) | 0.0813 (0.056, 0.110) | 0.063 (0.039, 0.094) | 0.094 (0.049, 0.150) |
auses all data from the current Malawi study and placental data from published work in Mozambique [13], buses only placental data from both countries, and cuses only peripheral data from both countries. Values presented are median values of posteriors and 95% credible intervals. The prevalence estimate based on the test characteristics are presented in last two rows.
Figure 2Density plots for parameter estimates using uniform priors for PCR characteristics and prevalence. Horizontal axes represent parameter evaluated, and vertical axes represent density of credible intervals. Dashed black lines represent priors. Overall results using all type samples from Malawi and placental samples from Mozambique [13] (thick green lines) compared to result for placental samples only in both countries (thin dashed blue lines) or peripheral samples only in both countries (thin dashed yellow lines).
Figure 3Predictive relationship between pool size, number of tests and confidence intervals. Panel A: Expected point estimate and confidence interval for pools of sizes 2 through 30. Blue line and band represent point estimate and confidence interval for an imperfect test based on the values calculated in the LCM (True Prevalence: 8.0%, Sensitivity: 96.0%, Specificity: 99.1%). Confidence interval is not shown for pool sizes where confidence interval includes 100% prevalence (pool sizes >25). Green line and shaded area represent point estimate and confidence interval for a perfect test as would be assumed setting PCR as a gold standard (true prevalence 8.4%, sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 100%). Point estimate and confidence intervals for samples processed individually using imperfect test characteristics represented in black. Panel B: Expected number of tests required for one-step and two-step pooling strategies by pool size. Closed blue circle represents individual testing. Open blue circles represent expected number of tests from randomly-mixed one-step pools with an imperfect test. Closed green circles represent expected number of tests from two-step pools with an imperfect test. Reduction in number of tests relative to individual testing (individual tests/pooled tests) is represented for two-step pooling (green solid line) and one-step pooling (blue solid line).