| Literature DB >> 30567537 |
Patrick McCreesh1,2, Davis Mumbengegwi3, Kathryn Roberts1, Munyaradzi Tambo3, Jennifer Smith1, Brooke Whittemore2, Gerard Kelly4, Caitlin Moe1, Max Murphy5, Mukosha Chisenga3, Bryan Greenhouse5, Henry Ntuku1, Immo Kleinschmidt6,7, Hugh Sturrock1, Petrina Uusiku8, Roland Gosling1, Adam Bennett1, Michelle S Hsiang9,10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subpatent malaria infections, or low-density infections below the detection threshold of microscopy or standard rapid diagnostic testing (RDT), can perpetuate persistent transmission and, therefore, may be a barrier for countries like Namibia that are pursuing malaria elimination. This potential burden in Namibia has not been well characterized.Entities:
Keywords: Asymptomatic; LAMP; Malaria; Malaria elimination; Namibia; RDT; Rapid diagnostic test; Subclinical; Submicroscopic; Subpatent
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30567537 PMCID: PMC6299963 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-018-2626-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1a Map of Zambezi region and study area, b spatial distribution of study participants and rapid diagnostic test (RDT) and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) detected infections. RDT rapid diagnostic test, DBS dried blood spot, LAMP loop-mediated isothermal amplification
Diagnostic accuracy of RDT in total study population and those with and without fever in the past 2 weeks, using LAMP as gold standard (n = 1919)
| Total (%, 95% CI) | Fever in past 2 weeks (%, 95% CI) | No fever in past 2 weeks (%, 95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 2.3 (0.06–13.8) | 0 (0.0–20.9) | 4.2 (0.2–23.1) |
| Specificity | 99.2 (98.7–99.5) | 98.7 (97.3–99.4) | 99.4 (98.7–99.7) |
| Positive predictive value | 6.3 (0.33–32.3) | 0 (0–43.9) | 11.1 (0.6–49.3) |
| Negative predictive value | 97.8 (97.0–98.4) | 96.6 (94.7–97.9) | 98.3 (97.4–98.9) |
Fig. 2Enrollment and malaria testing results. RDT rapid diagnostic test, LAMP loop-mediated isothermal amplification
Characteristics of study population, and association between clinical, demographic, and epidemiological factors and malaria infection
| Total (%) | LAMP negative (%) | LAMP positive (%) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical | ||||
| Fever in the past 2 weeks | ||||
| No | 1292 (69.2) | 1269 (98.2) | 23 (1.8) | 0.04 |
| Yes | 574 (30.8) | 555 (96.7 | 19 (3.3) | |
| Demographics | ||||
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 1056 (55.0) | 1033 (97.8) | 23 (2.2) | 0.84 |
| Male | 863 (45.0) | 843 (97.7) | 20 (2.3) | |
| Age (years) | ||||
| < 15 | 902 (47.0) | 889 (98.6) | 13 (1.4) | 0.07 |
| 15–40 | 629 (32.8) | 609 (96.8) | 20 (3.2) | |
| > 40 | 387 (20.2) | 378 (97.4) | 10 (2.6) | |
| Occupationa | ||||
| Agricultural | 241 (12.6) | 229 (95.0) | 12 (4.9) | 0.001 |
| Fishing | 25 (1.3) | 24 (96.0) | 1 (4.0) | |
| Cattle herder | 27 (1.4) | 24 (88.9) | 3 (11.1) | |
| Other manual labour | 51 (2.7) | 49 (96.1) | 2 (3.9) | |
| Police officer/guard | 16 (0.8) | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| Office/commercial/professional | 28 (1.5) | 27 (96.4) | 1 (3.6) | |
| Small market sales | 27 (1.4) | 27 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| Unemployed/homemaker/retiree | 443 (23.1) | 438 (98.9) | 5 (1.1) | |
| Student | 146 (7.6) | 142 (97.3) | 4 (2.7) | |
| Otherb | 13 (0.7) | 11 (84.6) | 2 (15.4) | |
| ≤ 15 years old | 902 (47.0) | 889 (98.6) | 13 (1.4) | |
| Socio-economic status | ||||
| Lowest | 368 (19.7) | 360 (97.8) | 8 (2.2) | 0.99 |
| Lower-middle | 353 (18.9) | 345 (97.7) | 8 (2.3) | |
| Middle | 380 (20.3) | 372 (97.9) | 8 (2.1) | |
| Upper-middle | 384 (20.6) | 376 (97.9) | 8 (2.1) | |
| Highest | 384 (20.6) | 374 (97.4) | 10 (2.6) | |
| Residence | ||||
| Health facility catchment area | ||||
| Chinchimane | 179 (9.3) | 174 (97.2) | 5 (2.8) | 0.83 |
| Choi | 308 (16.1) | 300 (97.4) | 8 (2.6) | |
| Kanono | 226 (11.9) | 221 (97.8) | 5 (2.2) | |
| Kasheshe | 340 (17.7) | 331 (97.4) | 9 (2.6) | |
| Sesheke | 462 (24.1) | 455 (98.5) | 7 (1.5) | |
| Sibbinda | 403 (21.0) | 394 (97.8) | 9 (2.2) | |
| Travel | ||||
| Travel in past 8 weeks | ||||
| No | 1597 (85.5) | 1560 (97.7) | 37 (2.2) | 0.17 |
| Yes | 270 (14.5) | 263 (97.4) | 7 (2.4) | |
| Travel categories | ||||
| No travel | 1597 (85.5) | 1562 (97.8) | 35 (2.2) | 0.76 |
| Domestic travel | 256 (13.7) | 249 (97.3) | 7 (2.1) | |
| International travel | 16 (0.9) | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | |
| Housing | ||||
| Tertile of housing qualityc | ||||
| Lowest | 866 (46.4) | 849 (98.0) | 17 (2.0) | 0.74 |
| Middle | 405 (21.7) | 395 (97.5) | 10 (2.5) | |
| Highest | 594 (31.9) | 579 (97.5) | 15 (2.5) | |
| Individuals per household | ||||
| < 5 | 194 (10.6) | 192 (99.0) | 2 (1.0) | 0.50 |
| ≥ 5 and < 10 | 1011 (55.1) | 988 (97.7) | 23 (2.3) | |
| ≥ 10 | 629 (34.3) | 613 (97.5) | 16 (2.5) | |
| Vector control | ||||
| ITN ownership | ||||
| None | 854 (45.6) | 834 (97.7) | 20 (2.3) | 0.88 |
| < 1 ITN per 2 people | 647 (34.6) | 634 (98.0) | 13 (2.0) | |
| ≥ 1 ITN per 2 people | 371 (19.8) | 362 (97.6) | 9 (2.4) | |
| ITN use | ||||
| No | 1250 (66.9) | 1226 (98.1) | 24 (1.9) | 0.18 |
| Yes | 619 (33.1) | 601 (97.1) | 18 (2.9) | |
| Sprayed in past year | ||||
| No | 723 (40.4) | 710 (98.2) | 13 (1.8) | 0.36 |
| Yes | 1065 (59.6) | 1039 (97.6) | 26 (2.4) | |
LAMP loop-mediated isothermal amplification, RDT rapid diagnostic test, ITN insecticide treated bed net, IRS indoor residual spraying
aOccupation was only assessed for participants over 15 years of age
bHerbalist, healer, bartender, land surveyor, soldier, headman
cHousing quality tertiles based on principle component analysis of wall type, roof type, eaves, and windows
Logistic regression analysis for potential risk factors associated with LAMP detectable malaria infection (n = 1869)
| Potential risk factor for malaria infection | OR (95% CI) | AOR* (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | Ref | |
| Male | 1.07 (0.58–1.95) | 0.99 (0.42–2.30) |
| Age (years) | ||
| < 15 | Ref | |
| 15–40 | 2.25 (1.11–4.55) | 1.35 (0.50–3.65) |
| > 40 | 1.81 (0.79–4.16) | 0.79 (0.26–2.36) |
| Occupation | ||
| Unemployed | Ref | |
| Student | 2.47 (0.65–9.31) | 2.12 (0.25–17.94) |
| Office/clerical/commercial/professional | 3.24 (0.37–28.76) | 3.44 (0.21–57.40) |
| Other manual labor | 3.58 (0.68–18.92) | 3.41 (0.11–107.45) |
| Fishing | 3.65 (0.41–32.48) | 3.51 (0.65–19.01) |
| Agricultural | 4.55 (1.58–13.07) | 5.02 (1.77–14.23)a |
| Cattle herder | 14.21 (2.97–68.12) | 11.82 (1.06–131.81)b |
| Otherc | 15.93 (2.78–91.25) | 11.26 (1.02–124.69) |
| Socioeconomic status quintile | ||
| Lowest | Ref | |
| Lower-middle | 1.04 (0.39–2.81) | 0.85 (0.39–1.89) |
| Middle | 0.97 (0.36–2.61) | 0.70 (0.22–2.21) |
| Upper-middle | 0.96 (0.36–2.58) | 0.71 (0.17–2.99) |
| Highest | 1.20 (0.47–3.08) | 0.85 (0.26–2.75) |
OR odds ratio, AOR adjusted odds ratio
* Adjusted for gender, age, socioeconomic status, and clustering at the health facility level
ap-value = 0.01
bp-value = 0.04
cHerbalist, healer, bartender, land surveyor, soldier, headman
Characteristics of subjects with fever in prior 2 weeks and association between care-seeking behaviour and infection
| Sought care | Total (%) | LAMP negative (%) | LAMP positive (%) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 571 | n = 552 | n = 19 | ||
| No | 275 (48.2) | 262 (47.5) | 13 (68.4) | 0.07 |
| Yes | 296 (51.8) | 290 (52.5) | 6 (31.6) |
Care-seeking only assessed for those who reported fever in the past 2 weeks. Treatment source, days to seek treatment and reasons for seeking care only assessed for those who sought treatment. Reason for not seeking care only assessed for those who did not seek treatment