Boonma Prapaporn, Christensen Peter R, Suwanarusk Rossarin, Price Ric N, Russell Bruce, Lek-Uthai Usa
Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Malar J. 2007 Sep 15;6:124. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-6-124.
Accurate diagnosis of Plasmodium spp. is essential for the rational treatment of malaria. Despite its many disadvantages, microscopic examination of blood smears remains the current "gold standard" for malaria detection and speciation. PCR assays offer an alternative to microscopy which has been shown to have superior sensitivity and specificity. Unfortunately few comparative studies have been done on the various molecular based speciation methods.
The sensitivity, specificity and cost effectiveness of three molecular techniques were compared for the detection and speciation of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax from dried blood spots collected from 136 patients in western Thailand. The results from the three molecular speciation techniques (nested PCR, multiplex PCR, and real-time PCR) were used to develop a molecular consensus (two or more identical PCR results) as an alternative gold standard.
According to the molecular consensus, 9.6% (13/136) of microscopic diagnoses yielded false negative results. Multiplex PCR failed to detect P. vivax in three mixed isolates, and the nested PCR gave a false positive P. falciparum result in one case. Although the real-time PCR melting curve analysis was the most expensive method, it was 100% sensitive and specific and least time consuming of the three molecular techniques investigated.
Although microscopy remains the most appropriate method for clinical diagnosis in a field setting, its use as a gold standard may result in apparent false positive results by superior techniques. Future studies should consider using more than one established molecular methods as a new gold standard to assess novel malaria diagnostic kits and PCR assays.
准确诊断疟原虫种类对于疟疾的合理治疗至关重要。尽管存在诸多缺点,但血液涂片显微镜检查仍是目前疟疾检测和虫种鉴定的“金标准”。聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测为显微镜检查提供了一种替代方法,已证明其具有更高的敏感性和特异性。遗憾的是,针对各种基于分子的虫种鉴定方法的比较研究较少。
比较了三种分子技术对来自泰国西部136例患者干血斑中恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫检测及虫种鉴定的敏感性、特异性和成本效益。利用三种分子虫种鉴定技术(巢式PCR、多重PCR和实时PCR)的结果建立分子共识(两个或更多相同的PCR结果)作为替代金标准。
根据分子共识,显微镜诊断中有9.6%(13/136)产生假阴性结果。多重PCR未能检测出三例混合分离物中的间日疟原虫,巢式PCR在一例中给出了恶性疟原虫的假阳性结果。尽管实时PCR熔解曲线分析是最昂贵的方法,但在所研究的三种分子技术中,它具有100%的敏感性和特异性,且耗时最少。
尽管显微镜检查在现场临床诊断中仍然是最合适的方法,但将其用作金标准可能会被更先进的技术导致明显的假阳性结果。未来的研究应考虑使用不止一种既定的分子方法作为新的金标准,以评估新型疟疾诊断试剂盒和PCR检测方法。