| Literature DB >> 35183178 |
Hamza B Agbana1,2, Eric Rogier3, Aminata Lo1, Zakaria Abukari1, Sophie Jones3, Ben Gyan1, Michael Aidoo3, Linda E Amoah4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic malaria infections can serve as potential reservoirs for malaria transmission. The density of parasites contained in these infections range from microscopic to submicroscopic densities, making the accurate detection of asymptomatic parasite carriage highly dependent on the sensitivity of the tools used for the diagnosis. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivities of a variety of molecular and serological diagnostic tools at determining the prevalence of asymptomatic Plasmodium falciparum parasite infections in two communities with varying malaria parasite prevalence.Entities:
Keywords: Asymptomatic; Bead-based multiplex; HRP2; Malaria; Microscopy; PET-PCR; RDT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35183178 PMCID: PMC8858553 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-022-04078-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Fig. 1Map of Ghana highlighting the study sites. The study sites, Obom and Asutsuare are represented by green circles on the map. The map was created for this study by Awiah Dzantor Selorm, ACECoR, University of Cape Coast, using shapefiles from the Survey Department of the Ghana Statistical Services and ArcMap GIS v10.5
Demographics of the study participants
| Parameters | Obom (n = 105) | Asutsuare (n = 89) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||
| Male/Female | 48/50* | 43/38* | 0.652a |
| Age (years) | |||
| Median (Range) | 14 (6.0–70.0) | 16 (10.0–66.0) | 0.109b |
| Diagnostics | |||
| Microscopy | 20/105 (19.1) | 2/89 (2.2) | 0.0002a |
| HRP2-RDT | 39/101 (38.6) | – | – |
HRP2 Bead (Luminex) | 65/105 (61.9) | 10/89 (11.2) | 0.0001c |
| PET-PCR | 63/105 (60) | 5/89 (5.6) | 0.001c |
| Nested PCR | 70/98 (71.4)¥ | 42/83 (50.6)‡ | 0.0056c |
Yrs year, Min minimum, Max maximum, n = total number of samples tested.
aPearson Chi-Square
bMann Whitney (Two-tailed)
cFisher’s exact test. *a few samples had missing gender data. ¥ = nPCR was not perform for 7 samples; ‡ = nPCR was not perform for 6 samples
Fig. 2Comparisons of PET-PCR, nPCR and the HRP2 bead assay detection tools to Microscopy (Gold standard). A Venn diagram illustrating the number of positive parasites by the four methods, A High transmission site, the four methods identified 8 samples as positive for the parasites, 6 positive samples between Nested PCR and HRP2 bead assay, and 0 between Microscopy and HRP2 bead assay, and 4 positive samples between PET-PCR and N-PCR. B Low transmission, the four methods did not identified any samples as positive for the parasites, 3 positive samples between Nested PCR and HRP2 bead assay, and no positive parasite between Microscopy and HRP2 bead assay, and also no positive sample between PET-PCR and Nested PCR
Fig. 3Parasite density determined by different tools. The median (IQR) parasite density of samples that tested positive for P. falciparum by microscopy (a), the median (IQR) HRP2 antigen content of the samples estimated using the HRP2 bead assay (b) and PET-PCR (c) from each site. Significant differences were observed in values obtained using microscopy (a) and the bead assay (b) but not by PET-PCR (c) when samples from Obom were compared to those from Asutusare
Inter-rater agreement between different detection tools
| Parameter | Obom | Asutsuare |
|---|---|---|
| RDT vs HRP2 bead assay | 0.262 (0.004)* | |
| PET-PCR vs Nested PCR | 0.348 (0.001)* | 0.022 (0.665) |
| PET-PCR vs HRP2 bead assay | 0.560 (0.000) | 0.496 (0.000) |
| Microscopy vs RDT | 0.194 (0.028)* | – |
| Microscopy vs PET-PCR | 0.040 (0.537) | − 0.033 (0.727) |
| Microscopy vs HRP2 bead assay | 0.027 (0.663) | 0.134 (0.079)* |
| Microscopy vs Nested PCR | − 0.014 (0.808) | − 0.034 (0.768) |
| Nested PCR vs RDT | 0.186 (0.019)* | – |
| Nested PCR vs PET-PCR | 0.348 (0.001)* | 0.022 (0.665) |
| Nested PCR vs HRP2 bead assay | 0.248 (0.012)* | 0.117 (0.084) |
| Nested PCR vs Microscopy | − 0.009 (0.874) | 0.047 (0.157) |
*Significant p value; vs, versus; No statistics could be computed for RDT vs the HRP2 bead assay in Asutsuare because no RDT positive samples were identified in Asutsuare
Diagnostic properties of Nested PCR, PET-PCR and HRP2 bead assay
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obom | ||||
| HRP2 bead assay vs Nested PCR | 0.4815 (0.3989 to 0.5651) | 0.4118 (0.3026 to 0.5304) | 0.619 (0.5235 to 0.7062) | 0.2857 (0.2057 to 0.3819) |
| HRP2 bead assay vs PET-PCR | 0.5078 (0.4222 to 0.5929) | 0.5122 (0.4059 to 0.6174) | 0.619 (0.5235 to 0.7062) | 0.4 (0.3114 to 0.4956) |
| Nested PCR vs PET-PCR | 0.5263 (0.4419 to 0.6092) | 0.6 (0.4829 to 0.7067) | 0.7143 (0.6181 to 0.7943) | 0.4 (0.3114 to 0.4956) |
| Asutsuare | ||||
| HRP2 bead assay vs Nested PCR | 0.1923 (0.1080 to 0.3190) | 0.3417 (0.2629 to 0.4303) | 0.1124 (0.06219 to 0.1946) | 0.494 (0.3891 to 0.5994) |
| HRP2 bead assay vs PET-PCR | 0.6667 (0.4171 to 0.8482) | 0.5153 (0.4391 to 0.5908) | 0.1124 (0.06219 to 0.1946) | 0.9438 (0.8751 to 0.9758) |
| Nested PCR vs PET-PCR | 0.1064 (0.04630 to 0.2259) | 0.328 (0.2519 to 0.4144) | 0.05618 (0.02423 to 0.1249) | 0.494 (0.3891 to 0.5994) |
PPV Positive Predictive Value, NPV Negative Predictive value. The values reported are relative frequency with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI)