Iqbal Jamshaid, Khalid Nabila, Hira Parsotam R
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait.
J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Dec;40(12):4675-8. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.12.4675-4678.2002.
Conventional light microscopy has been the established method for malaria diagnosis. However, recently several nonmicroscopic rapid diagnostic tests have been developed for situations in which reliable microscopy may not be available. This study was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a recently introduced ICT Malaria Pf/Pv test. This assay detects Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 antigen (PfHRP-2) for P. falciparum diagnosis and pan-malarial antigen for P. vivax diagnosis. In this study we compared the performance of ICT Malaria Pf/Pv with microscopy of Giemsa-stained blood films and with an OptiMAL test that detects Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) antigen. A total of 750 clinically suspected malaria patients were examined at local health centers in Kuwait. Both the antigen tests had a high degree of specificity (>98%) for detection of malaria infection. However, they were less sensitive than microscopy. Compared with microscopy the ICT Malaria PF/pf test failed to detect malaria infection in 93 (34%) of 271 malaria patients (11% of patients with P. falciparum and 37% of patients with P. vivax) and the OptiMAL test failed to detect malaria infection in 41 (15%) of 271 malaria patients (7% of patients with P. falciparum and 13% of patients with P. vivax). The sensitivities of the ICT Malaria Pf/Pv and OptiMAL tests for detection of P. falciparum infection were 81 and 87%, and those for detecting P. vivax were 58 to 79%, respectively. The sensitivity of the ICT Malaria Pf/Pv and OptiMAL tests decreased significantly to 23 and 44%, respectively, at parasite densities of <500/ micro l. Both of the tests also produced a number of false-positive results. Overall, the performance of the OptiMAL test was better than that of the ICT Malaria Pf/Pv test. However, our results raise particular concern over the sensitivity of the ICT Malaria Pf/Pv test for detection of P. vivax infection. Further developments appear necessary to improve the performance of the ICT Malaria Pf/Pv test.
传统光学显微镜检查一直是疟疾诊断的既定方法。然而,最近针对无法进行可靠显微镜检查的情况开发了几种非显微镜快速诊断测试。本研究旨在评估最近推出的ICT疟疾Pf/Pv检测的诊断性能。该检测法检测恶性疟原虫富含组氨酸蛋白2抗原(PfHRP-2)以诊断恶性疟原虫,检测间日疟原虫的全疟原虫抗原以诊断间日疟原虫。在本研究中,我们将ICT疟疾Pf/Pv检测的性能与吉姆萨染色血涂片显微镜检查以及检测疟原虫乳酸脱氢酶(pLDH)抗原的OptiMAL检测进行了比较。在科威特的当地卫生中心对总共750名临床疑似疟疾患者进行了检查。两种抗原检测对疟疾感染的检测均具有高度特异性(>98%)。然而,它们的敏感性低于显微镜检查。与显微镜检查相比,ICT疟疾PF/pf检测未能在271名疟疾患者中的93名(34%)(恶性疟原虫患者中的11%和间日疟原虫患者中的37%)中检测到疟疾感染,而OptiMAL检测未能在271名疟疾患者中的41名(15%)(恶性疟原虫患者中的7%和间日疟原虫患者中的13%)中检测到疟疾感染。ICT疟疾Pf/Pv和OptiMAL检测对恶性疟原虫感染的检测敏感性分别为81%和87%,对间日疟原虫感染的检测敏感性分别为58%至79%。当寄生虫密度<500/微升时,ICT疟疾Pf/Pv和OptiMAL检测的敏感性分别显著降至23%和44%。两种检测还产生了一些假阳性结果。总体而言,OptiMAL检测的性能优于ICT疟疾Pf/Pv检测。然而,我们的结果对ICT疟疾Pf/Pv检测检测间日疟原虫感染的敏感性提出了特别关注。似乎有必要进一步改进以提高ICT疟疾Pf/Pv检测的性能。