| Literature DB >> 25885097 |
Dennis Adu-Gyasi1, Kwaku Poku Asante1, Sam Newton1, David Dosoo1, Sabastina Amoako1, George Adjei1, Nicholas Amoako1, Love Ankrah1, Samuel Kofi Tchum1, Emmanuel Mahama1, Veronica Agyemang1, Kingsley Kayan1, Seth Owusu-Agyei1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is the most widespread enzyme defect that can result in red cell breakdown under oxidative stress when exposed to certain medicines including antimalarials. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CareStart G6PD deficiency Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) as a point-of-care tool for screening G6PD deficiency.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25885097 PMCID: PMC4401677 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of the study communities.
Fig 2Flow chart of profile for study participants’ selection and recruitment.
An outline comparing some common factors of importance between the methods used for G6PD screening in the study.
| TEST NAME | TRINITY QUANTITATIVE | TRINITY QUALITATIVE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10μl | 5μl | 2.0μl |
|
| 20mins | 1hr:5min | 10mins |
| TEMPERATURE AT WHICH TEST IS STABLE | 2°C–8°C | 2°C–8°C | 18°C–32°C |
| CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR POINT-OF-CARE SCREENING | No | No | Yes |
*: Volume of blood to estimate Haemoglobin concentration is needed.
Fig 3CareStart G6PD RDT screening kit with results interpretation.
Results of kit labelled with NORMAL and DEFICIENT interpretation.
Performance of the CareStart G6PD deficiency RDT kit to other commercially available methods for screening G6PD deficiency.
| Gold standard Deficient | Gold standard Normal | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RDT Diff. (n) | RDTnormal (n) | RDT Diff. (n) | RDTnormal (n) | Sensitivity% (95% CI) | Specificity% (95% CI) | AUC(95% CI) | |
|
| |||||||
| Trinity Biotech Qualitative | 90 | 1 | 4 | 102 | 98.9, (94.0, 100) | 96.2 (90.6, 99.0) | 0.98 (0.96, 1.00) |
| Trinity Biotech Quantitative | 67 | 0 | 32 | 106 | 100 (94.7, 100) | 72.1 (64.1, 79.2) | 0.86 (0.83, 0.90) |
Fig 4ROC curve of RDT performance with plotted points of considered enzyme activity.
Diagnostic performance of CareStart G6PD RDT by gender compared to Trinity Biotech Quantitative and Qualitative methods for G6PD deficiency screening.
| Gold standard Deficient | Gold standard Normal | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RDT Diff. (n) | RDT normal (n) | RDT Diff. (n) | RDT normal (n) | Sensitivity % (95% CI) | Specificity % (95% CI) | AUC (95% CI) | ||
| Sex |
| |||||||
| Males | Trinity Biotech Qualitative | 57 | 0 | 1 | 58 | 100 (93.7, 100) | 98.3 (90.9, 100) | 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) |
| Trinity Biotech Quantitative | 50 | 0 | 10 | 59 | 100 (92.9, 100) | 85.5 (75.0, 92.8) | 0.93 (0.89, 0.97) | |
| Females | Trinity Biotech Qualitative | 33 | 1 | 3 | 44 | 97.1 (84.7, 99.9) | 93.6 (82.5, 98.7) | 0.95 (0.91, 1.00) |
| Trinity Biotech Quantitative | 17 | 0 | 22 | 47 | 100 (80.5, 100) | 68.1 (55.8, 78.8) | 0.84 (0.79, 0.90) | |
Fig 5Area under the Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) curve for G6PD RDT performance considering malaria status of participants.
Fig 6Estimates of G6PD enzyme activity levels by malaria parasite status.