Universite Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal.
Malaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Aug;121:92-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2022.04.060. Epub 2022 Apr 30.
Different methods for detecting Plasmodium parasite infection or exposure are available, but a systematic comparison of all these methodologies to predict malaria infection is lacking. Understanding the characteristics of respective tests is helpful in choosing the most appropriate tests for epidemiological or research purposes.
We performed microscopy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for 496 patients presenting with febrile illness in Dakar, Senegal, in 2015. Blood samples had laboratory multiplex assays performed for Immunoglobin G serology and detection of histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) antigen. Sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) for different tests were calculated using PCR as the gold standard for detecting active infection. Modeling through latent class analysis compared each test to a modeled gold standard for Se/Sp estimates.
Against PCR, Se/Sp were 95.2%/93.7% for RDT, 90.4%/100.0% for microscopy, and 97.9%/48.1% for laboratory HRP2 detection. Compared with the modeled gold standard, Se of microscopy was 93.5% and Se of RDT, PCR, and laboratory HRP2 detection were all greater than 99%. Se/Sp of Immunoglobin G serology were substantially lower for detecting active infection.
Compared with single tests, a combinatorial latent class analysis approach of multiple biomarkers for detecting malaria infection from patient samples provides greater sensitivity and specificity for epidemiological estimates and research objectives.
有多种方法可用于检测疟原虫感染或暴露,但缺乏对所有这些方法学进行系统比较以预测疟疾感染的研究。了解各种检测方法的特点有助于选择最适合流行病学或研究目的的检测方法。
我们对 2015 年在塞内加尔达喀尔因发热就诊的 496 例患者进行了显微镜检查、快速诊断检测(RDT)和聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测。血液样本进行了实验室多重检测,以检测免疫球蛋白 G 血清学和检测组氨酸丰富蛋白 2(HRP2)抗原。使用 PCR 作为检测活动性感染的金标准计算了不同检测方法的敏感性(Se)和特异性(Sp)。通过潜在类别分析模型将每种检测方法与模拟金标准进行比较,以估计 Se/Sp。
与 PCR 相比,RDT 的 Se/Sp 为 95.2%/93.7%,显微镜的 Se/Sp 为 90.4%/100.0%,实验室 HRP2 检测的 Se/Sp 为 97.9%/48.1%。与模拟金标准相比,显微镜的 Se 为 93.5%,RDT、PCR 和实验室 HRP2 检测的 Se 均大于 99%。检测活动性感染时,免疫球蛋白 G 血清学的 Se/Sp 要低得多。
与单一检测方法相比,来自患者样本的多个生物标志物的组合潜在类别分析方法对流行病学估计和研究目标具有更高的敏感性和特异性。