| Literature DB >> 30550594 |
Oliver Bärenbold1,2, Amadou Garba3, Daniel G Colley4, Fiona M Fleming5, Ayat A Haggag6, Reda M R Ramzy7, Rufin K Assaré1,2,8,9, Edridah M Tukahebwa10, Jean B Mbonigaba11, Victor Bucumi12, Biruck Kebede13, Makoy S Yibi14, Aboulaye Meité15, Jean T Coulibaly1,2,8,9, Eliézer K N'Goran8,9, Louis-Albert Tchuem Tchuenté16,17, Pauline Mwinzi18, Jürg Utzinger1,2, Penelope Vounatsou1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intervention guidelines against Schistosoma mansoni are based on the Kato-Katz technique. However, Kato-Katz thick smears show low sensitivity, especially for light-intensity infections. The point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA) is a promising rapid diagnostic test detecting antigen output of living worms in urine and results are reported as trace, 1+, 2+, and 3+. The use of POC-CCA for schistosomiasis mapping, control, and surveillance requires translation of the Kato-Katz prevalence thresholds into POC-CCA relative treatment cut-offs. Furthermore, the infection status of egg-negative but antigen-positive individuals and the intensity-dependent sensitivity of POC-CCA should be estimated to determine its suitability for verification of disease elimination efforts.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30550594 PMCID: PMC6310297 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006941
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Summary of the Kato-Katz results of the databases.
| Country | Location | Date | Age range | zd
| zs
| NKK | P. KK | geom. | P 1 KK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameroon | Makenene [ | 2010 | 6-16 | 3 | 3 | 251 | 71.7 | 161 | 43.3 | 41.7 (34.8, 48.7) |
| Cameroon | Njombe [ | 2010 | 8-16 | 3 | 3 | 245 | 63.3 | 173 | 27.5 | 30.6 (26.9, 34.3) |
| Cameroon | Yaounde [ | 2010 | 7-14 | 3 | 3 | 233 | 27.9 | 235 | 40.9 | 16.5 (12.3, 20.7) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | Man [ | 2016 | 9-13 | 2 | 3 | 695 | 6.5 | 72 | 22.0 | 3.8 (2.6, 4.9) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 1 [ | 2011 | 0.2-5.5 | 2 | 2 | 109 | 25.7 | 90 | 37.0 | 16.5 (12.3, 20.8) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 2 [ | 2011 | 0.2-5.5 | 2 | 2 | 133 | 21.1 | 122 | 30.8 | 11.7 (9.1, 14.3) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 1 [ | 2010 | 8-12 | 3 | 3 | 170 | 91.7 | 525 | 248.0 | 70.2 (62.4, 78.1) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 2 [ | 2010 | 8-12 | 3 | 3 | 130 | 53.1 | 116 | 36.8 | 24.5 (14.8, 34.3) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 3 [ | 2010 | 8-12 | 3 | 3 | 146 | 32.9 | 50 | 8.5 | 8.3 (3.1, 13.5) |
| Ethiopia | Harbu [ | 2010 | 8-12 | 3 | 2 | 300 | 57.0 | 69 | 31.0 | 33.1 (24.8, 41.4) |
| Ethiopia | Jiga [ | 2010 | 8-12 | 3 | 2 | 320 | 49.4 | 153 | 70.9 | 35.8 (32.1, 39.5) |
| Kenya | [ | 2007 | 1-15 | 3 | 2 | 1,845 | 22.1 | 106 | 32.1 | 11.4 (7.7, 15.2) |
| Uganda | 1 [ | 2010 | 7-13 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 55.0 | 240 | 34.2 | 29.3 (24.0, 34.6) |
| Uganda | 2 [ | 2010 | 7-13 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 54.0 | 122 | 33.3 | 29.8 (23.6, 36.1) |
| Uganda | 3 [ | 2010 | 7-13 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 31.0 | 37 | 19.8 | 14.9 (9.7, 20.1) |
| Uganda | 4 [ | 2010 | 7-13 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 35.0 | 247 | 58.0 | 21.1 (16.8, 25.4) |
| Uganda | 5 [ | 2010 | 7-13 | 3 | 2 | 100 | 12.0 | 58 | 28.4 | 6.8 (3.8, 9.8) |
| Uganda | Baseline | 2013 | 6-16 | 3 | 2 | 775 | 6.3 | 48 | 22.0 | 3.1 (1.5, 4.7) |
| Uganda | Follow-up | 2015 | 6-16 | 3 | 2 | 659 | 4.2 | 68 | 33.5 | 2.7 (1.5, 3.9) |
| Uganda | Mapping | 2013 | 9-14 | 3 | 2 | 711 | 3.8 | 182 | 26.9 | 1.8 (1.0, 2.6) |
| Ecuador | [ | 2014 | 6-16 | 1 | 1 | 144 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Ethiopia | [ | 2010 | 8-12 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Burundi | [ | 2014 | 12-16 | 1 | 2 | 8,482 | 1.5 | 56 | 34.4 | 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | All | 6-15 | 1 | 2 | 11,449 | 8.0 | 267 | 80.3 | 6.1 (5.6, 6.6) | |
| Rwanda | All | 2014 | 1 | 2 | 8,695 | 2.0 | 84 | 52.0 | 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) | |
| South Sudan | All | 10-14 | 1 | 2 | 5,649 | 7.1 | 128 | 54.1 | 5.7 (5.1, 6.3) | |
| Egypt | Gov 1 [ | 2016 | 6-15 | 1 | 1 | 3,000 | 3.5 | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 2 [ | 2016 | 6-15 | 1 | 1 | 5,000 | 1.7 | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 3 [ | 2016 | 6-15 | 1 | 1 | 2,946 | 0.1 | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 4 [ | 2016 | 6-15 | 1 | 1 | 974 | 0.4 | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 5 [ | 2016 | 6-15 | 1 | 1 | 2,997 | 0.1 | - | - | - |
1 z is the number of stool specimens taken on different days
2 z is the number of Kato-Katz thick smears prepared by a single stool specimens
Summary of POC-CCA results of databases employed for the current modeling study to translate Kato-Katz to POC-CCA prevalence intervention thresholds.
| Country | Location | zr
| NCCA | P. CCA | (%) | Tr− | 2 − 3+ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameroon | Makunene | 3 | 270 | 85.2 | 75.9 (68.2, 83.7) | 60.4 | 52.1 (48.7, 55.5) | - | - |
| Cameroon | Njombe | 3 | 270 | 87.8 | 75.2 (73.0, 77.4) | 55.9 | 43.1 (34.4, 51.7) | - | - |
| Cameroon | Yaounde | 3 | 237 | 72.1 | 50.8 (45.7, 55.9) | 24.1 | 17.2 (13.6, 20.7) | - | - |
| Côte d’Ivoire | Man | 1 | 700 | 32.7 | - | 20.4 | - | - | - |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 1 | 2 | 109 | 81.7 | 67.0 (61.8, 72.2) | 44.0 | 35.8 (22.8, 48.8) | 27.5 | 22.0 (66.7, 76.4) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 2 | 2 | 109 | 72.2 | 58.3 (50.8, 65.7) | 45.9 | 32.0 (24.5, 39.4) | 24.1 | 17.7 (8.1, 27.2) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 1 | 3 | 170 | - | - | 86.5 | 83.3 (81.5, 85.1) | 77.6 | 69.4 (66.3, 72.5) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 2 | 3 | 130 | - | - | 51.5 | 40.5 (27.4, 53.6) | 23.1 | 15.9 (13.5, 18.2) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 3 | 3 | 146 | - | - | 34.2 | 23.1 (22.3, 23.9) | 6.8 | 5.0 (3.4, 6.6) |
| Ethiopia | Harbu | 3 | 300 | 80.0 | 71.2 (65.0, 77.4) | - | - | - | - |
| Ethiopia | Jiga | 3 | 320 | 62.5 | 59.6 (58.6, 60.5) | - | - | - | - |
| Kenya | 3 | 1,845 | 74.4 | 53.3 (51.0, 55.5) | - | - | 11.6 | 7.7 (6.8, 8.6) | |
| Uganda | 1 | 1 | 100 | 70.0 | - | 52.0 | - | 28.0 | - |
| Uganda | 2 | 1 | 100 | 74.0 | - | 56.0 | - | 22.0 | - |
| Uganda | 3 | 1 | 100 | 65.0 | - | 52.0 | - | 20.0 | - |
| Uganda | 4 | 1 | 100 | 56.0 | - | 46.0 | - | 20.0 | - |
| Uganda | 5 | 1 | 100 | 48.0 | - | 35.0 | - | 7.0 | - |
| Uganda | Base | 3 | 775 | 33.7 | 21.0 (19.0, 22.9) | 13.4 | 8.5 (6.5, 10.5) | 5.2 | 3.1 (1.0, 5.3) |
| Uganda | F1 | 3 | 659 | 37.0 | 21.2 (13.9, 28.6) | 19.0 | 11.4 (8.7, 14.2) | 2.4 | 1.6 (0.7, 2.4) |
| Uganda | Mapping | 3 | 711 | 19.0 | 11.2 (10.3, 12.2) | 7.3 | 4.6 (3.8, 5.5) | 2.0 | 1.6 (1.3, 1.8) |
| Ecuador | 1 | 144 | 0 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Ethiopia | 1 | 100 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Burundi | 1 | 8,482 | 41.3 | - | 10.9 | - | - | - | |
| Côte d’Ivoire | All | 1 | 11,453 | 20.9 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rwanda | All | 1 | 8,695 | 37.5 | - | 8.6 | - | - | - |
| South Sudan | All | 1 | 5,649 | 41.5 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 1 | 1 | 3,000 | 17.6 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 2 | 1 | 5,000 | 9.4 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 3 | 1 | 2,946 | 4.6 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 4 | 1 | 974 | 9.7 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Egypt | Gov 5 | 1 | 2,997 | 12.3 | - | - | - | - | - |
1 z is the number of POC-CCA tests performed on different days
2 Tr+ is the prevalence when trace, 1+, 2+, and 3+ results are considered positive
3 Tr− is the prevalence when 1+, 2+, and 3+ results are considered positive
4 2 − 3+ is the prevalence when 2+ and 3+ results are considered positive
Fig 1Model-based estimate of the infection intensity-dependent sensitivity of POC-CCA.
Model-based estimates of the specificity and sensitivity for egg-negative infections of POC-CCA.
| Specificity | Sensitivity–egg-negative/antigen-positive | |
|---|---|---|
| T/1+/2+/3+ | 0.96 (0.95, 0.97) | 0.75 (0.65, 0.84) |
| 1+/2+/3+ | 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) | 0.23 (0.12, 0.39) |
| 2+/3+ | 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) | 0.01 (0.01, 0.02) |
Fig 2Model-based estimates of the infection intensity-dependent sensitivity of Kato-Katz for various numbers of days (d) with one or two samples (s).
Prevalence of egg-positive and egg-negative/antigen-positive cases and infection intensities for each dataset.
| Country | Location | Prev. egg-pos. (%) | Prev. egg-neg. (%) | Mean infect. (EPG) | Mean pop. egg-count |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameroon | Makenene | 91 (85, 96) | 3 (0, 8) | 221.8 (149.8, 325.8) | 75.0 (53.3, 106.2) |
| Cameroon | Njombe | 84 (75, 91) | 5 (0, 13) | 189.0 (113.4, 308.9) | 48.2 (30.9, 72.2) |
| Cameroon | Yaounde | 38 (29, 48) | 38 (27, 49) | 476.5 (225.2, 986.7) | 46.5 (25.1, 81.5) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | Man | 8 (6, 12) | 24 (20, 28) | 132.2 (65.5, 250.0) | 7.6 (3.5, 14.3) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 1 | 42 (29, 58) | 42 (26, 58) | 222.1 (84.9, 515.4) | 41.8 (19.4, 80.2) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 2 | 50 (31, 70) | 23 (4, 41) | 245.8 (94.9, 572.1) | 65.4 (27.8, 132.6) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 1 | 93 (88, 97) | 5 (1, 10) | 683.5 (535.9, 891.6) | 313.9 (250.6, 393.5) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 2 | 62 (52, 74) | 25 (7, 42) | 243.0 (127.5, 442.9) | 59.7 (34.7, 97.2) |
| Côte d’Ivoire | 3 | 51 (39, 63) | 8 (0, 28) | 868.5 (134.1, 3656.4) | 48.4 (17.7, 100.6) |
| Ethiopia | Harbu | 67 (58, 76) | 14 (5, 22) | 80.5 (59.8, 107.8) | 28.2 (21.4, 37.6) |
| Ethiopia | Jiga | 52 (47, 58) | 10 (6, 15) | 156.7 (125.9, 197.7) | 65.0 (50.9, 82.8) |
| Kenya | 30 (27, 34) | 45 (41, 49) | 119.0 (90.6, 158.8) | 11.1 (8.8, 13.9) | |
| Uganda | 1 | 72 (58, 83) | 5 (0, 17) | 274.3 (143.4, 508.3) | 86.5 (46.6, 154.3) |
| Uganda | 2 | 70 (56, 81) | 7 (0, 20) | 217.2 (111.5, 398.1) | 74.4 (40.0, 126.9) |
| Uganda | 3 | 38 (25, 53) | 27 (14, 39) | 167.1 (55.9, 426.8) | 27.6 (9.9, 60.9) |
| Uganda | 4 | 43 (29, 62) | 21 (6, 34) | 586.6 (247.7, 1,350.2) | 70.2 (35.0, 128.9) |
| Uganda | 5 | 16 (8, 28) | 35 (23, 48) | 366.3 (136.4, 896.9) | 26.4 (9.3, 55.4) |
| Uganda | Base | 12 (9, 16) | 13 (9, 17) | 303.9 (56.9, 1,347.0) | 3.8 (1.6, 8.2) |
| Uganda | F1 | 9 (6, 13) | 20 (15, 25) | 137.5 (53.3, 328.0) | 7.5 (3.0, 16.3) |
| Uganda | Mapping | 6 (3, 8) | 6 (3, 9) | 693.4 (215.0, 2,117.2) | 9.0 (3.8, 17.1) |
Posterior mean and 95% BCI for all model estimates.
1 Estimated prevalence of egg-shedding individuals
2 Estimated prevalence of non egg-shedding individuals that harbor worms
3 Estimated arithmetic mean infection intensity of an egg-positive infected individual
4 Estimated mean egg count in the population
Fig 3Relation between egg-negative prevalence, egg-positive prevalence, mean egg count in the population, and mean infection intensity of an infected individual.
Fig 4Relation between observed Kato-Katz and POC-CCA prevalence based on the datasets in Tables 1 and 2.
Fig 5Predictions of the dependence between Kato-Katz and POC-CCA prevalence for various infection intensities and prevalence of egg-negative cases.
Infection intensity is given in EPG and egg-negative prevalence in %.
Fig 6Scatter plot of all results for single slide Kato-Katz from Fig 5.
Fig 7Scatter plot of all results for duplicate slide Kato-Katz from Fig 5.
Estimated equivalent prevalence of POC-CCA to single and duplicate slide Kato-Katz and suggested equivalent prevalence threshold.
| Kato-Katz | POC-CCA | Suggested threshold | 1+/2+/3+ | 2+/3+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single | ||||
| 1% | 5-30 | 10% | 3-10% | 1% |
| 5% | 10-30% | 20% | 5-15% | 5% |
| 10% | 20-40% | 30% | 15-25% | 10% |
| 25% | 35-70% | 50% | 30-50% | 25% |
| 50% | >75% | 75% | >60% | 50% |
| Duplicate | ||||
| 1% | 5-25 | 10% | 3-10% | 1% |
| 5% | 10-35% | 20% | 5-15% | 5% |
| 10% | 15-40% | 30% | 10-20% | 5-10% |
| 25% | 30-70% | 45% | 25-40% | 15-25% |
| 50% | >60% | 60% | >50% | >40% |
WHO recommended treatment strategy for schistosomiasis mansoni [8] extended with the suggested thresholds for POC-CCA from Table 5.
| Category | Prevalence among school-aged children | Action to be taken |
|---|---|---|
| High-risk community | ≥ 50% by parasitological methods | Treat all school-aged children (enrolled and not enrolled) once a year. |
| Moderate-risk community | ≥ 10% by parasitological methods | Treat all school-aged children (enrolled and not enrolled) once every 2 years. |
| Low-risk community | ≤ 10% by parasitological methods | Treat all school-aged children (enrolled and not enrolled) twice during their schooling age (e.g., once on entry and once on exit). |