Cheaveau James, Nguyen Hong, Chow Barbara, Marasinghe Dewdunee, Mohon Abu Naser, Yuan Hong, Viana Gisele, van Schalkwyk Donelly, Church Deirdre, Chan Wilson, Pillai Dylan R
Clinical Section of Microbiology, Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infectious Diseases, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018 Oct 12;5(11):ofy260. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy260. eCollection 2018 Nov.
The mainstay of malaria diagnosis relies on rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and microscopy, both of which lack analytical sensitivity. This leads to repeat testing to rule out malaria. A prospective diagnostic trial of the Meridian Malaria assay (loop-mediated isothermal amplification [LAMP]) was conducted comparing it with reference microscopy and RDTs (BinaxNOW Malaria) in returning travelers between June 2017 and January 2018. Returning travelers with signs and symptoms of malaria were enrolled in the study. RDTs, microscopy, and LAMP assays were performed simultaneously. A total of 298 patients (50.7% male; mean age, 32.5 years) were enrolled, most visiting friends and relatives (43.3%), presenting with fever (88.9%), not taking prophylaxis (82.9%), and treated as outpatients (84.1%). In the prospective arm (n = 348), LAMP had a sensitivity of 98.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.0%-100%) and a specificity of 97.6% (95% CI, 95.2%-99.1%) vs microscopy. After discrepant resolution with real-time polymerase chain reaction, LAMP had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 93.7%-100%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98.7%-100%) vs microscopy. After discrepant resolution, RDTs had a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI, 58.6%-96.4%) and a specificity of 96.2% (95% CI, 93.2%-98.1%) vs microscopy. When including retrospective specimens (n = 377), LAMP had a sensitivity of 98.8% (95% CI, 93.2%-100%) and a specificity of 97.6% (95% CI, 95.2%-99.1%) vs microscopy, and after discrepant resolution of this set, LAMP had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 95.8%-100%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98.7%-100%). A cost-benefit analysis of reagents and labor suggests savings of up to USD$13 per specimen using a novel algorithm with LAMP screening.
疟疾诊断的主要方法依赖于快速诊断检测(RDTs)和显微镜检查,这两种方法都缺乏分析灵敏度。这导致需要重复检测以排除疟疾。2017年6月至2018年1月期间,对回归旅行者进行了一项关于子午线疟疾检测(环介导等温扩增法[LAMP])的前瞻性诊断试验,并将其与参考显微镜检查和RDTs(BinaxNOW疟疾检测)进行比较。有疟疾体征和症状的回归旅行者被纳入该研究。同时进行RDTs、显微镜检查和LAMP检测。共纳入298例患者(50.7%为男性;平均年龄32.5岁),大多数是探亲访友(43.3%),出现发热症状(88.9%),未采取预防措施(82.9%),并作为门诊患者接受治疗(84.1%)。在前瞻性队列(n = 348)中,与显微镜检查相比,LAMP的灵敏度为98.1%(95%置信区间[CI],90.0%-100%),特异性为97.6%(95% CI,95.2%-99.1%)。经实时聚合酶链反应解决差异后,与显微镜检查相比,LAMP的灵敏度为100%(95% CI,93.7%-100%),特异性为100%(95% CI,98.7%-100%)。差异解决后,与显微镜检查相比,RDTs的灵敏度为83.3%(95% CI,58.6%-96.4%),特异性为96.2%(95% CI,93.2%-98.1%)。当纳入回顾性样本(n = 377)时,与显微镜检查相比,LAMP的灵敏度为98.8%(95% CI,93.2%-100%),特异性为97.6%(95% CI,95.2%-99.1%),在解决该组差异后,LAMP的灵敏度为100%(95% CI,95.8%-100%),特异性为100%(95% CI,98.7%-100%)。试剂和人工的成本效益分析表明,使用LAMP筛查的新算法每个样本最多可节省13美元。