Johannes Mischlinger1,2,3,4,5,6, Paul Pitzinger1,2, Luzia Veletzky1,2,5,6, Mirjam Groger1,2,5,6, Rella Zoleko-Manego2,3,4,5,6, Ayola A Adegnika2,3,4, Selidji T Agnandji2,3,4, Bertrand Lell2,3,4, Peter G Kremsner2,3,4, Egbert Tannich7,8, Ghyslain Mombo-Ngoma2,3,4,5,6,9, Benjamin Mordmüller2,3,4, Michael Ramharter5,6,8. 1. Department of Medicine I, Division of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 2. Centre de Recherches Médicales de Lambaréné, Gabon. 3. Institut für Tropenmedizin, Universität Tübingen, Germany. 4. German Center for Infection Research, partner site Tübingen, Germany. 5. Department of Tropical Medicine, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, Germany. 6. I Department of Medicine University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. 7. Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Arbovirus and Hemorrhagic Fever Reference and Research, Germany. 8. German Centre for Infection Research, partner site Hamburg-Luebeck-Borstel, Hamburg, Germany. 9. Université des Sciences de la Santé Gabon, Département de Parasitology, Malaria Clinical and Operational Research Unit, Melen Hospital, Libreville, Gabon.
Abstract
Background: Diagnosis of malaria is usually based on samples of peripheral blood. However, it is unclear whether capillary (CAP) or venous (VEN) blood samples provide better diagnostic performance. Quantitative differences of parasitemia between CAP and VEN blood and diagnostic performance characteristics were investigated. Methods: Patients were recruited between September 2015 and February 2016 in Gabon. Light microscopy and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) measured parasitemia of paired CAP and VEN samples. CAP and VEN performance characteristics using microscopy were evaluated against a qPCR gold standard. Results: Microscopy revealed a median parasitemia of 495/μL in CAP and 429/μL in VEN samples, manifesting in a 16.6% (P = .04) higher CAP parasitemia compared with VEN parasitemia. Concordantly, in qPCR -0.278 (P = .006) cycles were required for signal detection in CAP samples. CAP sensitivity of microscopy relative to the gold standard was 81.5% vs VEN sensitivity of 73.4%, while specificities were 91%. CAP and VEN sensitivities dropped to 63.3% and 45.9%, respectively, for a subpopulation of low-level parasitemias, whereas specificities were 92%. Conclusions: CAP sampling leads to higher parasitemias compared to VEN sampling and improves diagnostic sensitivity. These findings may have important implications for routine diagnostics, research, and elimination campaigns of malaria.
Background: Diagnosis of malaria is usually based on samples of peripheral blood. However, it is unclear whether capillary (CAP) or venous (VEN) blood samples provide better diagnostic performance. Quantitative differences of parasitemia between CAP and VEN blood and diagnostic performance characteristics were investigated. Methods:Patients were recruited between September 2015 and February 2016 in Gabon. Light microscopy and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) measured parasitemia of paired CAP and VEN samples. CAP and VEN performance characteristics using microscopy were evaluated against a qPCR gold standard. Results: Microscopy revealed a median parasitemia of 495/μL in CAP and 429/μL in VEN samples, manifesting in a 16.6% (P = .04) higher CAP parasitemia compared with VEN parasitemia. Concordantly, in qPCR -0.278 (P = .006) cycles were required for signal detection in CAP samples. CAP sensitivity of microscopy relative to the gold standard was 81.5% vs VEN sensitivity of 73.4%, while specificities were 91%. CAP and VEN sensitivities dropped to 63.3% and 45.9%, respectively, for a subpopulation of low-level parasitemias, whereas specificities were 92%. Conclusions: CAP sampling leads to higher parasitemias compared to VEN sampling and improves diagnostic sensitivity. These findings may have important implications for routine diagnostics, research, and elimination campaigns of malaria.
Authors: Abalinda M Gorret; Rabbison Muhindo; Emma Baguma; Moses Ntaro; Edgar M Mulogo; Molly Deutsch-Feldman; Jonathan J Juliano; Dan Nyehangane; Ross M Boyce Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: The Trong Nguyen; Brice Nzigou Mombo; Albert Lalremruata; Erik Koehne; Rella Zoleko Manego; Lia Betty Dimessa Mbadinga; Ayola Akim Adegnika; Selidji Todagbe Agnandji; Bertrand Lell; Peter Gottfried Kremsner; Thirumalaisamy P Velavan; Michael Ramharter; Benjamin Mordmüller; Ghyslain Mombo-Ngoma Journal: Malar J Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Mariana Aschar; Maria Carmen A Sanchez; Maria de Jesus Costa-Nascimento; Maria de Lourdes R N Farinas; Angélica D Hristov; Giselle F M C Lima; Juliana Inoue; José E Levi; Silvia M Di Santi Journal: Rev Panam Salud Publica Date: 2022-03-28