Natalie E Hofmann1, Maria Gruenberg1, Elma Nate2, Alice Ura2, Daniela Rodriguez-Rodriguez3, Mary Salib2, Ivo Mueller4, Thomas A Smith3, Moses Laman2, Leanne J Robinson5, Ingrid Felger6. 1. Medical Parasitology and Infection Biology, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Vector-borne Diseases Unit, Papua New Guinea Institute for Medical Research, Madang, Papua New Guinea. 3. Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Divison of Population Health and Immunity, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Institut Pasteur, Paris, France; Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. Vector-borne Diseases Unit, Papua New Guinea Institute for Medical Research, Madang, Papua New Guinea; Divison of Population Health and Immunity, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Medical Biology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Disease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 6. Medical Parasitology and Infection Biology, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: ingrid.felger@swisstph.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Submicroscopic malaria infections contribute to transmission in exposed populations but their extent is underestimated even by standard molecular diagnostics. Sophisticated sampling and ultra-sensitive molecular methods can maximise test sensitivity but are not feasible in routine surveillance. Here we investigate the gains achievable by using increasingly sensitive methods with the aim to understand what diagnostic sensitivity is necessary to guide malaria interventions. METHODS: Venous blood samples were collected from participants in a cross-sectional survey in two coastal medium-endemic villages in Madang province, Papua New Guinea. Using ultra-sensitive quantitative PCR (us-qPCR) on concentrated high-volume blood samples (2 mL) as reference, we quantified the proportion of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections and gametocyte carriers detectable in fingerprick blood volumes (200 μL) by standard 18S rRNA qPCR, us-qPCR, rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and ultra-sensitive P falciparum RDT. We further compared the epidemiological patterns observed with each diagnostic approach in the study population. FINDINGS: Venous blood samples were collected from 300 participants between Dec 5, 2016, and Feb 24, 2017 (ie, during peak rainy season). Standard qPCR identified 87 (54%) of 161 P falciparum infections and 73 (52%) of 141 P vivax infections detected by the reference method. us-qPCR identified an additional 11 (7%) P falciparum infections and 14 (10%) P vivax infections. 80 (86%) of 93 P falciparum gametocyte carriers and 75 (91%) of 82 P vivax gametocyte carriers were found among infections detectable by us-qPCR. Ultra-sensitive RDT missed half of P falciparum infections detected by standard qPCR, including high gametocytaemic infections. Epidemiological patterns corresponded well between standard qPCR and the reference method. As the prevalence of P vivax decreased with increasing age, the proportion of P vivax infections undetectable by standard qPCR increased. INTERPRETATION: Almost all potentially transmitting parasite carriers were identified with us-qPCR on fingerprick blood volumes. Analysing larger blood volumes revealed a large pool of ultra-low-density P falciparum and P vivax infections, which are unlikely to be transmitted. Therefore, current RDTs cannot replace molecular diagnostics for identifying potential P falciparum transmitters. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation.
BACKGROUND: Submicroscopic malaria infections contribute to transmission in exposed populations but their extent is underestimated even by standard molecular diagnostics. Sophisticated sampling and ultra-sensitive molecular methods can maximise test sensitivity but are not feasible in routine surveillance. Here we investigate the gains achievable by using increasingly sensitive methods with the aim to understand what diagnostic sensitivity is necessary to guide malaria interventions. METHODS: Venous blood samples were collected from participants in a cross-sectional survey in two coastal medium-endemic villages in Madang province, Papua New Guinea. Using ultra-sensitive quantitative PCR (us-qPCR) on concentrated high-volume blood samples (2 mL) as reference, we quantified the proportion of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections and gametocyte carriers detectable in fingerprick blood volumes (200 μL) by standard 18S rRNA qPCR, us-qPCR, rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and ultra-sensitive P falciparum RDT. We further compared the epidemiological patterns observed with each diagnostic approach in the study population. FINDINGS: Venous blood samples were collected from 300 participants between Dec 5, 2016, and Feb 24, 2017 (ie, during peak rainy season). Standard qPCR identified 87 (54%) of 161 P falciparum infections and 73 (52%) of 141 P vivax infections detected by the reference method. us-qPCR identified an additional 11 (7%) P falciparum infections and 14 (10%) P vivax infections. 80 (86%) of 93 P falciparum gametocyte carriers and 75 (91%) of 82 P vivax gametocyte carriers were found among infections detectable by us-qPCR. Ultra-sensitive RDT missed half of P falciparum infections detected by standard qPCR, including high gametocytaemic infections. Epidemiological patterns corresponded well between standard qPCR and the reference method. As the prevalence of P vivax decreased with increasing age, the proportion of P vivax infections undetectable by standard qPCR increased. INTERPRETATION: Almost all potentially transmitting parasite carriers were identified with us-qPCR on fingerprick blood volumes. Analysing larger blood volumes revealed a large pool of ultra-low-density P falciparum and P vivax infections, which are unlikely to be transmitted. Therefore, current RDTs cannot replace molecular diagnostics for identifying potential P falciparum transmitters. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation.
Authors: Albert Lalremruata; The Trong Nguyen; Matthew B B McCall; Ghyslain Mombo-Ngoma; Selidji T Agnandji; Ayôla A Adegnika; Bertrand Lell; Michael Ramharter; Stephen L Hoffman; Peter G Kremsner; Benjamin Mordmüller Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Eric Rogier; Karen E S Hamre; Vena Joseph; Mateusz M Plucinski; Jacquelin Presume; Ithamare Romilus; Gina Mondelus; Tamara Elisme; Lotus van den Hoogen; Jean Frantz Lemoine; Chris Drakeley; Ruth A Ashton; Michelle A Chang; Alexandre Existe; Jacques Boncy; Gillian Stresman; Thomas Druetz; Thomas P Eisele Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 5.226
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: Fiona R P Bhondoekhan; Kelly M Searle; Harry Hamapumbu; Mukuma Lubinda; Japhet Matoba; Michael Musonda; Ben Katowa; Timothy M Shields; Tamaki Kobayashi; Douglas E Norris; Frank C Curriero; Jennifer C Stevenson; Philip E Thuma; William J Moss Journal: Malar J Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Maria Gruenberg; Clara Antunes Moniz; Natalie E Hofmann; Cristian Koepfli; Leanne J Robinson; Elma Nate; Wuelton Marcelo Monteiro; Gisely Cardoso de Melo; Andrea Kuehn; Andre M Siqueira; Wang Nguitragool; Quique Bassat; Marcus Lacerda; Jetsumon Sattabongkot; Ivo Mueller; Ingrid Felger Journal: Malar J Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 2.979