Laban Natasha M, Kobayashi Tamaki, Hamapumbu Harry, Sullivan David, Mharakurwa Sungano, Thuma Philip E, Shiff Clive J, Moss William J
Macha Research Trust, Choma, Zambia.
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Malar J. 2015 Jan 28;14:25. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0544-3.
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) antigen are used to identify individuals with Plasmodium falciparum infection even in low transmission settings seeking to achieve elimination. However, these RDTs lack sensitivity to detect low-density infections, produce false negatives for P. falciparum strains lacking pfhrp2 gene and do not detect species other than P. falciparum.
Results of a PfHRP2-based RDT and Plasmodium nested PCR were compared in a region of declining malaria transmission in southern Zambia using samples from community-based, cross-sectional surveys from 2008 to 2012. Participants were tested with a PfHRP2-based RDT and a finger prick blood sample was spotted onto filter paper for PCR analysis and used to prepare blood smears for microscopy. Species-specific, real-time, quantitative PCR (q-PCR) was performed on samples that tested positive either by microscopy, RDT or nested PCR.
Of 3,292 total participants enrolled, 12 (0.4%) tested positive by microscopy and 42 (1.3%) by RDT. Of 3,213 (98%) samples tested by nested PCR, 57 (1.8%) were positive, resulting in 87 participants positive by at least one of the three tests. Of these, 61 tested positive for P. falciparum by q-PCR with copy numbers ≤ 2 x 10(3) copies/μL, 5 were positive for both P. falciparum and Plasmodium malariae and 2 were positive for P. malariae alone. RDT detected 32 (53%) of P. falciparum positives, failing to detect three of the dual infections with P. malariae. Among 2,975 participants enrolled during a low transmission period between 2009 and 2012, sensitivity of the PfHRP2-based RDT compared to nested PCR was only 17%, with specificity of >99%. The pfhrp gene was detected in 80% of P. falciparum positives; however, comparison of copy number between RDT negative and RDT positive samples suggested that RDT negatives resulted from low parasitaemia and not pfhrp2 gene deletion.
Low-density P. falciparum infections not identified by currently used PfHRP2-based RDTs and the inability to detect non-falciparum malaria will hinder progress to further reduce malaria in low transmission settings of Zambia. More sensitive and specific diagnostic tests will likely be necessary to identify parasite reservoirs and achieve malaria elimination.
检测富含组氨酸蛋白2(PfHRP2)抗原的快速诊断检测(RDT)用于识别恶性疟原虫感染个体,即使在寻求实现疟疾消除的低传播环境中也是如此。然而,这些RDT检测低密度感染时缺乏敏感性,对缺乏pfhrp2基因的恶性疟原虫菌株会产生假阴性结果,并且无法检测除恶性疟原虫以外的其他疟原虫种类。
在赞比亚南部疟疾传播率下降的一个地区,使用2008年至2012年基于社区的横断面调查样本,比较了基于PfHRP2的RDT和疟原虫巢式PCR的结果。参与者接受基于PfHRP2的RDT检测,采集手指刺血样本点在滤纸上用于PCR分析,并制作血涂片用于显微镜检查。对通过显微镜检查、RDT或巢式PCR检测呈阳性的样本进行种特异性实时定量PCR(q-PCR)。
在总共纳入的3292名参与者中,12人(0.4%)通过显微镜检查呈阳性,42人(1.3%)通过RDT呈阳性。在通过巢式PCR检测的3213份(98%)样本中,57份(1.8%)呈阳性,共有87名参与者通过这三种检测中的至少一种呈阳性。其中,61人通过q-PCR检测恶性疟原虫呈阳性,拷贝数≤2×10³拷贝/μL,5人同时感染恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫,2人仅间日疟原虫呈阳性。RDT检测出32例(53%)恶性疟原虫阳性,未检测出3例与间日疟原虫的双重感染。在2009年至2012年低传播期纳入的2975名参与者中,基于PfHRP2的RDT与巢式PCR相比的敏感性仅为17%,特异性>99%。在80%的恶性疟原虫阳性样本中检测到pfhrp基因;然而,RDT阴性和RDT阳性样本之间的拷贝数比较表明,RDT阴性是由于低寄生虫血症而非pfhrp2基因缺失导致的。
目前使用的基于PfHRP2的RDT无法识别的低密度恶性疟原虫感染以及无法检测非恶性疟原虫疟疾,将阻碍赞比亚低传播环境中进一步降低疟疾发病率的进程。可能需要更敏感和特异的诊断检测来识别寄生虫储存库并实现疟疾消除。