van den Hoogen Lotus L, Bareng Paolo, Alves Joana, Reyes Ralph, Macalinao Malou, Rodrigues Júlio M, Fernandes José M, Goméz Lara F, Hall Tom, Singh Susheel K, Fornace Kimberly, Luchavez Jennifer, Kitchen Alan, Chiodini Peter, Espino Fe, Tetteh Kevin K A, Stresman Gillian, Sepúlveda Nuno, Drakeley Chris
Department of Infection Biology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Health, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Manila, Philippines.
Front Public Health. 2020 Sep 9;8:480. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00480. eCollection 2020.
Antimalarial antibody measurements are useful because they reflect historical and recent exposure to malaria. As such, they may provide additional information to assess ongoing transmission in low endemic or pre-elimination settings where cases are rare. In addition, the absence of antibody responses in certain individuals can indicate the cessation of transmission. Commercial malaria enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detect antimalarial antibodies and are commonly used to screen blood donations for possible malaria infection. However, there is no standardized test to detect antimalarial antibodies for epidemiological use. Here we compared five commercially available ELISA kits (Trinity Biotech, newbio, DiaPro, Cellabs, and NovaTec) in search of a standardized tool for supporting claims of absence of malaria transmission. For comparison, a research-based (RB) ELISA protocol was performed alongside the commercial kits. The commercial kits were first compared using serum samples from known malaria-unexposed individuals ( = 223) and -infected individuals ( = 191) to assess specificity and cross-reactivity against non-malaria infections. In addition, 134 samples from ≥10-year-olds collected in a hyperendemic region in the Gambia in the early 1990s were used to assess sensitivity. Three out of five kits showed high sensitivity (90-92%), high specificity (98-99%), low cross-reactivity (0-3%) and were considered user-friendly (Trinity Biotech, newbio and NovaTec). Two of these kits (Trinity Biotech and NovaTec) were taken forward for epidemiological evaluation and results were compared to those using the RB-ELISA. Samples from two pre-elimination settings (Praia, Cape Verde; = 1,396, and Bataan, the Philippines; = 1,824) were tested. Serological results from both the Trinity Biotech kit and the RB-ELISA concurred with recent passively detected case counts in both settings. Results from the Trinity Biotech kit reflected a significant decrease in the number of reported cases in Bataan in the 1990s better than the RB-ELISA. Results from the NovaTec kit did not reflect transmission patterns in either setting. The Trinity Biotech commercial ELISA kit was considered reliable for epidemiological use and accurately described transmission patterns in two (previously) malaria endemic settings. The use of this simple and standardized serological tool may aid national control and elimination programs by confirming that regions are free from malaria.
抗疟抗体检测很有用,因为它们反映了过去和近期对疟疾的接触情况。因此,在低流行或接近消除疟疾的地区(病例稀少),抗疟抗体检测可为评估疟疾传播情况提供额外信息。此外,某些个体缺乏抗体反应可能表明疟疾传播已经停止。商业疟疾酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)可检测抗疟抗体,常用于筛查献血者是否可能感染疟疾。然而,目前尚无用于流行病学研究的标准化抗疟抗体检测方法。在此,我们比较了五种市售ELISA试剂盒(Trinity Biotech、newbio、DiaPro、Cellabs和NovaTec),以寻找一种标准化工具来支持疟疾传播已停止的说法。为作比较,同时采用了一种基于研究的(RB)ELISA方案。首先,使用来自已知未接触过疟疾的个体(n = 223)和感染疟疾的个体(n = 191)的血清样本对商业试剂盒进行比较,以评估其对非疟疾感染的特异性和交叉反应性。此外,还使用了20世纪90年代初在冈比亚一个高流行地区收集的134份10岁及以上人群的样本评估其敏感性。五种试剂盒中有三种显示出高敏感性(90 - 92%)、高特异性(98 - 99%)、低交叉反应性(0 - 3%),且被认为使用方便(Trinity Biotech、newbio和NovaTec)。其中两种试剂盒(Trinity Biotech和NovaTec)被用于流行病学评估,并将结果与使用RB - ELISA的结果进行比较。对来自两个接近消除疟疾地区(佛得角普拉亚;n = 1396,菲律宾巴丹;n = 1824)的样本进行了检测。Trinity Biotech试剂盒和RB - ELISA得到的血清学结果均与这两个地区近期被动检测到的病例数相符。Trinity Biotech试剂盒的结果比RB - ELISA更能准确反映20世纪9年代巴丹报告病例数的显著下降。NovaTec试剂盒的结果未能反映任何一个地区的传播模式。Trinity Biotech商业ELISA试剂盒被认为可可靠用于流行病学研究,并准确描述了两个(以前的)疟疾流行地区的传播模式。使用这种简单且标准化的血清学工具,通过确认地区无疟疾,可能有助于国家疟疾控制和消除计划。