Taylor Steve M, Mayor Alfredo, Mombo-Ngoma Ghyslain, Kenguele Hilaire M, Ouédraogo Smaïla, Ndam Nicaise Tuikue, Mkali Happy, Mwangoka Grace, Valecha Neena, Singh Jai Prakash Narayan, Clark Martha A, Verweij Jaco J, Adegnika Ayola Akim, Severini Carlo, Menegon Michela, Macete Eusebio, Menendez Clara, Cisteró Pau, Njie Fanta, Affara Muna, Otieno Kephas, Kariuki Simon, ter Kuile Feiko O, Meshnick Steven R
Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Barcelona Centre for International Health Research, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Centro de Investigação em Saúde de Manhiça, Maputo, Mozambique'
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Jun;52(6):2144-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00565-14. Epub 2014 Apr 16.
Malaria parasite infections that are only detectable by molecular methods are highly prevalent and represent a potential transmission reservoir. The methods used to detect these infections are not standardized, and their operating characteristics are often unknown. We designed a proficiency panel of Plasmodium spp. in order to compare the accuracy of parasite detection of molecular protocols used by labs in a clinical trial consortium. Ten dried blood spots (DBSs) were assembled that contained P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae, and P. ovale; DBSs contained either a single species or a species mixed with P. falciparum. DBS panels were tested in 9 participating laboratories in a masked fashion. Of 90 tests, 68 (75.6%) were correct; there were 20 false-negative results and 2 false positives. The detection rate was 77.8% (49/63) for P. falciparum, 91.7% (11/12) for P. vivax, 83.3% (10/12) for P. malariae, and 70% (7/10) for P. ovale. Most false-negative P. falciparum results were from samples with an estimated ≤ 5 parasites per μl of blood. Between labs, accuracy ranged from 100% to 50%. In one lab, the inability to detect species in mixed-species infections prompted a redesign and improvement of the assay. Most PCR-based protocols were able to detect P. falciparum and P. vivax at higher densities, but these assays may not reliably detect parasites in samples with low P. falciparum densities. Accordingly, formal quality assurance for PCR should be employed whenever this method is used for diagnosis or surveillance. Such efforts will be important if PCR is to be widely employed to assist malaria elimination efforts.
仅通过分子方法可检测到的疟原虫感染非常普遍,是一个潜在的传播储存库。用于检测这些感染的方法尚未标准化,其操作特性往往也不为人知。我们设计了一个疟原虫属能力验证样本组,以比较一个临床试验联盟中各实验室使用的分子检测方案对寄生虫检测的准确性。收集了10个干血斑(DBS),其中含有恶性疟原虫、间日疟原虫、三日疟原虫和卵形疟原虫;DBS要么含有单一物种,要么含有与恶性疟原虫混合的物种。DBS样本组在9个参与实验室中以盲法进行检测。在90次检测中,68次(75.6%)正确;有20次假阴性结果和2次假阳性结果。恶性疟原虫的检测率为77.8%(49/63),间日疟原虫为91.7%(11/12),三日疟原虫为83.3%(10/12),卵形疟原虫为70%(7/10)。大多数恶性疟原虫假阴性结果来自估计每微升血液中寄生虫≤5个的样本。各实验室之间的准确性范围为100%至50%。在一个实验室中,无法检测混合物种感染中的物种促使对检测方法进行重新设计和改进。大多数基于PCR的检测方案能够在较高密度下检测到恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫,但这些检测方法可能无法可靠地检测到恶性疟原虫密度低的样本中的寄生虫。因此,每当使用该方法进行诊断或监测时,都应采用正式的PCR质量保证措施。如果要广泛使用PCR来协助疟疾消除工作,此类努力将很重要。