Abstract
Prompt and accurate diagnosis of malaria is the key to prevent disease morbidity and mortality. This study was carried out to evaluate diagnostic performance of 3 commercial rapid detection tests (RDTs), i.e., Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™, Malaria Ag-Pf™, and Malaria Ag-Pv™ tests, in comparison with the microscopic and PCR methods. A total of 460 blood samples microscopically positive for Plasmodium falciparum (211 samples), P. vivax (218), mixed with P. falciparum and P. vivax (30), or P. ovale (1), and 124 samples of healthy subjects or patients with other fever-related infections, were collected. The sensitivities of Malaria Ag-Pf™ and Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™ compared with the microscopic method for P. falciparum or P. vivax detection were 97.6% and 99.0%, or 98.6% and 99.0%, respectively. The specificities of Malaria Ag-Pf™, Malaria Ag-Pv™, and Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™ were 93.3%, 98.8%, and 94.4%, respectively. The sensitivities of Malaria Ag-Pf™, Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™, and microscopic method, when PCR was used as a reference method for P. falciparum or P. vivax detection were 91.8%, 100%, and 96.7%, or 91.9%, 92.6%, and 97.3%, respectively. The specificities of Malaria Ag-Pf™, Malaria Ag-Pv™, Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™, and microscopic method were 66.2%, 92.7%, 73.9%, and 78.2%, respectively. Results indicated that the diagnostic performances of all the commercial RDTs are satisfactory for application to malaria diagnosis.
-
Key words: Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium vivax, malaria diagnosis, rapid detection test (RDT), Thailand
INTRODUCTION
Malaria is the major causes of morbidity and mortality in the world. The disease affects the populations of tropical and subtropical areas worldwide. Of the 5 species of
Plasmodium that cause malaria in humans,
Plasmodium falciparum is the most dangerous and responsible for most morbidity and mortality [
1]. Malaria control relies principally on prompt and accurate diagnosis and chemotherapy with effective antimalarial drugs [
2]. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is the key to prevent morbidity and mortality while it is avoiding unnecessary use of antimalarial agents. The traditional malaria diagnosis is based on the examination of stained blood smears under light microscope. The method remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis as it is inexpensive and sensitive (5-10 parasites/µl blood) [
3]. However, it is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and more importantly, requires skill and experienced microscopists.
Recently, alternative methods, such as immunochromatographic assay, molecular amplification method, fluorescence microscopy, mass spectrometry, and flow cytometry have been developed for malaria diagnosis [
3-
10]. These methods have some advantages and also some limitations. PCR is considered the most sensitive and specific method, but is expensive, requiring PCR machine, relatively sophisticated and time-consuming procedure, which may not be applicable for malaria diagnosis in remote areas. Malaria rapid detection tests (RDTs) which are based on capture of the parasite antigen by monoclonal antibodies incorporated into a test strip provide a possibility to replace microscopic diagnosis. Although there have been a number of RDTs commercially available, their sensitivity and specificity remain uncertain. RDTs can be divided into 2 major types. The first type detects histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2), a protein uniquely synthesized by
P. falciparum and present in the blood stream of an infected individual [
11]. Some HRP2 tests are designed to also detect aldolase enzyme, a protein synthesized by all 4 human-infecting
Plasmodium species [
12]. The second type detects parasite lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH), an enzyme produced by all 4 human malaria species [
13,
14]. HRP2 test kits have generally shown higher sensitivity for
P. falciparum detection and can be less costly than the pLDH [
15-
18]. Nevertheless, several studies have demonstrated that HRP2 remains in the blood stream for an extended time following successful eradication of the parasite with effective antimalarial treatment, contributing to false positive results and limited specificity [
19,
20]. In areas along the Thai-Myanmar border with a high annual malaria incidence, malaria diagnosis is an important tool in controlling disease morbidity and mortality [
21]. RDTs would be an effective alternative diagnostic tool or used as an adjunct to microscopy for successful malaria control.
In the present study, 3 commercial RDTs (SD BIOLINE: Standard Diagnostics, Seoul, Republic of Korea), i.e., Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™, Malaria Antigen Ag-Pf™, and Malaria Antigen Ag-Pv™, were assessed for their diagnostic performance for P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria. Ag-Pf™ detects HRP2 specific to P. falciparum, whereas Pg-Pv™ detects pLDH specific to P. vivax, and Pf/Pan™ detects both HRP2 and pLDH specific to Plasmodium species in human blood. The assessment of their diagnostic performance was performed in comparison with the gold-standard microscopic and reference PCR methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample collection
The study was cross-sectional and was conducted during May 2008- April 2009 at Mae Sot General Hospital, Mae Sot District, Tak Province, Thailand, an area along the Thai-Myanmar border with a high annual malaria incidence (
http://www.thaivbd.org/cms/index.php). The inclusion criteria were blood samples obtained from febrile patients (oral temperature >37.5℃) with acute uncomplicated malaria and healthy subjects who had no previous sign of fever for at least weeks. The exclusion criteria were blood samples from those having previous antimalarial treatment or presence of clinical signs and symptoms of severe malaria.
P. falciparum accounts for 50-60% of the
Plasmodium species in this region. A total of 584 blood samples, 500 µl each for microscopic examination and 100 µl finger-prick blood for PCR and RDTs, were collected for malaria diagnosis by 3 methods, microscopic, PCR, and RDTs. Among them, 460 were collected from patients with signs and symptoms of malaria, 72 were from patients with fever related to other infections (10 typhus, 17 scrub typhus, and 45 dengue hemorrhagic fever), and 52 normal blood samples obtained from blood bank of Mae Sot General Hospital. Blood smears of 460 malaria samples were confirmed by 2 microscopists; 211, 218, 30, and 1 samples were identified as infections with
P. falciparum,
P. vivax, mixed infection with
P. falciparum and
P. vivax, and
P. ovale, respectively.
Microscopic examinations
Thick blood smears were prepared for all blood samples and stained with 10% Giemsa. The malaria parasite was detected under light microscopy. The number of parasites was counted against 200 leucocytes and parasite density was estimated by assuming 8,000 leucocytes/µl blood. Samples were considered negative when no parasite was detected after examining 100 microscopic fields. The malaria microscopic examination was performed by 2 independent experienced microscopists from Mae Sot General Hospital and Pharmacology and Toxicology Laboratory, Thammasat University, Thailand. Each blood slide was blinded and the result was masked to both of the 2 microscopists. In order to check for inter-observer variability, a double blind cross reading of a random sampling of 100 blood slides was carried out by the senior microscopist.
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs)
Malaria diagnosis by 3 commercial RDTs, i.e., Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™ (Catalogue No.05FK60), Malaria Ag-Pf™ (Catalogue No. 05FK50), and Ag-Pv™ (Catalogue No. 05FK70) (SD BIOLINE) were performed in all blood samples (finger-prick blood) using the method described by the manufacturer (
http://standardia.com/html_e/mn03/mn03_01.asp). The presence of both the control and test lines indicated a positive result for
P. falciparum and
P. vivax, whereas the presence of only the control line indicated a negative result. All RDT kits were stored as directed by the manufacturer and the quality of package desiccant was checked before use.
PCR analysis
PCR analysis was performed in a total of randomly selected 129 (20%) finger-prick blood samples. The fresh blood sample (20 µl) was spotted onto a filter paper (Whatmann No. 3), and the dried blood spot paper was stored in a zipper plastic bag containing desiccant, and transported to he Pharmacology Unit, Graduate Program in Biomedical Sciences, Thammasat University for PCR analysis. Genomic DNA was extracted using Chelex-resin (Biorad, Hercules, California, USA) according to the method of Wooden et al. [
22]. The previously published nested PCR methods were employed to detect malaria species specific reactions [
23]. The method is highly specific and can differentiate
P. falciparum,
P. vivax, and other malaria species.
The performances of all RDTs were evaluated based on the following criteria: sensitivity, specificity, positive prediction value (PPV), negative prediction value (NPV), false positive rate, and false negative rate, in 2 separate analyses; (i) diagnostic performance of the 3 RDTs in comparison with the microscopic method (gold standard), and (ii) comparative diagnostic performances of the 3 RDTs in comparison with the microscopic method and PCR (reference). The sensitivity of the test was calculated as (number of true positives/[number of true positives+number of false negatives])×100, and the specificity of the test was calculated as (number of true negatives/[number of true negatives+number of false positives])×100, PPV and NPV were determined from (number of true positive/[number of true positive+number of false positive])×100, and (number of true negative/[number of true negative+number of false negative])×100, respectively. The false positive and the false negative rates were determined from 1-specificity, and 1- sensitivity, respectively. The detection limit was calculated from the sample with the lowest parasitemia with the true positive result, and was confirmed by the laboratory clone P. falciparum culture with different dilutions of parasitemia.
Statistical analysis was performed by the chi-square test at a statistical significance level of P=0.05, using the SPSS version 12.0.
RESULTS
Diagnostic performance of RDTs in comparison with microscopy
The parasite density of P. falciparum and P. vivax were 2-70,000 and 2-27,200 parasites/µl, respectively. A double blind cross reading of a random sample of 100 slides showed 1% inter-observer variability.
The diagnostic performances of all the 3 commercial RDTs were evaluated in 584 blood samples, in comparison with the microscopy method.
Table 1 summarizes the number of blood samples with positive and negative detection of
P. falciparum and
P. vivax. A total of 229 and 211 samples, respectively, showed positive for
P. falciparum by Ag-Pf™ and the microscopic method.
P. vivax was detected in 219 and 218 samples by Ag-Pv™ and the microscopic method, respectively.
P. falciparum and
P. vivax , respectively, were detected in 232 and 200 samples by Pf/pan™. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, false positive rate and false negative rates of the 3 RDTs compared with the microscopic method are shown in
Table 2. The sensitivity of Ag-Pf™ and Pf/Pan™ compared with the microscopic method for detection of
P. falciparum was 97.6% and 99.0%, respectively. The sensitivity of Ag-Pv™ and Pf/Pan™ for detection of
P. vivax was 98.6% and 99.0%, respectively. The specificity of Ag-Pf™, Ag-Pv™, and Pf/Pan™ was 93.3%, 98.8%, and 94.4%, respectively. All the 3 RDTs showed significant correlation with the microscopic method in detecting malaria parasite species (
P<0.001). Parasitemia of the false negative samples for Ag-Pf™ and Ag-Pv™ were 2-1,446 and 4-62 parasite/µl, respectively. Parasitemia of the false negative samples by Pf/pan™ for detection of
P. falciparum and
P. vivax were 41-1,466 and <20 parasites/µl, respectively. The detection limit for
P. falciparum and
P. vivax was >2 parasites/µl for all RDT tests. For the laboratory strain
P. falciparum dilution, the detection limit was 5 parasites/µl.
The sensitivity of the 3 RDTs categorized by parasite density is summarized in
Table 3. Results clearly showed lower sensitivity of all RDTs in detecting both
P. falciparum and
P. vivax with parasite densities of less than 50 parasites/µl.
PCR was performed in a total of 129 randomly selected blood samples. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, false positive and false negative rates of the 3 RDTs, and the microscopic method in comparison with the PCR method are shown in
Table 4. Ag-Pf™ showed the highest false positive rate. The sensitivity of Ag-Pf™, Pf/Pan™, and the microscopic method for
P. falciparum detection were 91.8%, 100%, and 96.7%, respectively. The sensitivity of Ag-Pv™, Pf/Pan™, and the microscopic method for
P. vivax detection were 91.9%, 92.6%, and 97.3%, respectively. The specificity of Ag-Pf™, Ag-Pv™, Pf/Pan™, and the microscopic method were 66.2%, 92.7%, 73.9%, and 78.2%, respectively. All the RDTs and the microscopic method showed significant correlation with the PCR method in detecting certain species of malaria (
P<0.001). Based on PCR results, the microscopic method provided the best diagnostic performance compared with the RDTs for detection of both
P. falciparum and
P. vivax.
DISCUSSION
The present study demonstrated that the 3 RDTs, Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan™, Malaria Antigen Ag-Pf™, and Malaria Antigen Ag-Pv™ showed good test performances for detection of both P. falciparum and P. vivax. Pf/Pan™ is a one-step test for detection of HRP2 specific to P. falciparum and pLDH pan-specific to Plasmodium species in the human blood sample. Ag-Pv™ is a one-step detection of pLDH specific to P. vivax, and Ag-Pf™ is a one-step detection of HRP2 specific to P. falciparum in the human blood sample. Ag-Pf™ and Ag-Pv™ are specific for detection of P. falciparum and P. vivax, respectively. Both showed excellent sensitivity and specificity.
The performance of the Ag-Pf test observed in the present study was in agreement with previous studies with other HRP2-based commercial RDTs, i.e., BinaxNow Malaria™ (Binax, Inc., Inverness Medical Professional Diagnostic, Scarborough, ME, USA) [
22], Paracheck Pf™ (Orchid Biomedical system) [
22,
23], and ParaHit PF™ (Span Diagnostic Ltd) [
22,
23]. The tests also showed good performance when compared with pfLDH-based commercial RDTs, such as CareStart Malaria test™ (AccessBio Inc.) [
22], OptiMAL strip™ (DiaMed AG) [
13], and OptiMAL-IT™ (DiaMed AG) [
22-
24]. Malaria Ag-Pv™ which detected pvLDH showed very good performance similarly to other commercial RDTs, such as OptiMAL strip™ (DiaMed AG) [
13], and SD FK70 Malaria Antigen Pv test™ (Standard Diagnostics, Seoul, Republic of Korea) [
22]. The excellent performance of Pf/Pan™ for detection of both
P. falciparum and
P. vivax observed in this study was also similar to that reported with OptiMAL™ (DiaMed AG) [
13]. Markedly variable sensitivity and specificity have been reported for commercially available RDTs [
13,
22-
35]. It is difficult to directly compare the diagnostic performances of these tests since results reported may be influenced by many factors, such as environmental conditions, the use of different gold-standards, as well as possible geographic variation in malaria antigens. All these factors should be taken into consideration when selecting RDTs for application to malaria diagnosis.
When PCR was the reference method, the microscopic method showed a low specificity (78.2%). The false positive was 21.7%; this was an interesting data. The explanation for this could be other species of
Plasmodium spp. (
P. knowlesi) that have been reported in Thailand [
22,
23]. The PCR method used as the reference could not differentiate this
P. knowlesi. Therefore, the PCR result showed negative data. However, the 5 blood slides from these samples showed malaria parasites in red blood cells. False negative results of RDTs were observed and have been attributed to possible genetic heterogeneity of HRP2 or LDH expression, deletion of HRP2 or LDH gene, presence of blocking antibodies, or immune-complex formation. On the other hand, false positive tests can occur even in samples with high parasitemia, which could be due to several reasons, including viable asexual-stage parasitemia below the detection limit of microscopy (possibly due to drug resistance), persistence of antigens due to sequestration and incomplete treatment, delayed clearance of circulating antigen (free or in antigen-antibody complexes), and cross reaction with non-falciparum malaria or rheumatoid factor.
In conclusion, the test performance of these 3 RDTs as malaria diagnostic tools are promising. The tests could detect Plasmodium species with high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Commission on Higher Education, Ministry of Education, Thailand, Thailand National Research University (NRU), and Standard Diagnostics (Republic of Korea). We thank Ms. Kulaya Ruengweerayut for her kind support for sample collection.
References
- 1. Clark IA, Alleva LM, Mills AC, Cowden WB. Pathogenesis of malaria and clinically similar conditions. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004;17:509-539.
- 2. Na-Bangchang K, Karbwang J. Current status of malaria chemotherapy and the role of pharmacology in antimalarial drug research and development. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2009;23:387-409.
- 3. Moody A. Rapid diagnostic tests for malaria parasites. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15:66-78.
- 4. Bacon DJ, Jambou R, Fandeur T, Le Bras J, Wongsrichanalai C, Fukuda MM, Ringwald P, Sibley CH, Kyle DE. World Antimalarial Resistance Network (WARN) II: in vitro antimalarial drug susceptibility. Malar J 2007;6:120.
- 5. Demirev PA, Feldman AB, Kongkasuriyachai D, Scholl P, Sullivan D Jr, Kumar N. Detection of malaria parasites in blood by laser desorption mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 2002;74:3262-3266.
- 6. Draper CC, Sirr SS. Serological investigations in retrospective diagnosis of malaria. Br Med J 1980;280:1575-1576.
- 7. Gay F, Traore B, Zanoni J, Danis M, Fribourg-Blanc A. Direct acridine orange fluorescence examination of blood slides compared to current techniques for malaria diagnosis. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1996;90:516-518.
- 8. Johnston SP, Pieniazek NJ, Xayavong MV, Slemenda SB, Wilkins PP, da Silva AJ. PCR as a confirmatory technique for laboratory diagnosis of malaria. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:1087-1089.
- 9. Noedl H, Yingyuen K, Laoboonchai A, Fukuda M, Sirichaisinthop J, Miller RS. Sensitivity and specificity of an antigen detection ELISA for malaria diagnosis. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2006;75:1205-1208.
- 10. Saito-Ito A, Akai Y, He S, Kimura M, Kawabata M. A rapid, simple and sensitive flow cytometric system for detection of Plasmodium falciparum. Parasitol Int 2001;50:249-257.
- 11. Howard RJ, Uni S, Aikawa M, Aley SB, Leech JH, Lew AM, Wellems TE, Rener J, Taylor DW. Secretion of a malarial histidine-rich protein (Pf HRP II) from Plasmodium falciparum-infected erythrocytes. J Cell Biol 1986;103:1269-1277.
- 12. Lee N, Baker J, Bell D, McCarthy J, Cheng Q. Assessing the genetic diversity of the aldolase genes of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax and its potential effect on performance of aldolase-detecting rapid diagnostic tests. J Clin Microbiol 2006;44:4547-4549.
- 13. Palmer CJ, Bonilla JA, Bruckner DA, Barnett ED, Miller NS, Haseeb MA, Masci JR, Stauffer WM. Multicenter study to evaluate the OptiMAL test for rapid diagnosis of malaria in U.S. hospitals. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:5178-5182.
- 14. Moody AH, Chiodini PL. Non-microscopic method for malaria diagnosis using OptiMAL IT, a second-generation dipstick for malaria pLDH antigen detection. Br J Biomed Sci 2002;59:228-231.
- 15. Mason DP, Kawamoto F, Lin K, Laoboonchai A, Wongsrichanalai C. A comparison of two rapid field immunochromatographic tests to expert microscopy in the diagnosis of malaria. Acta Trop 2002;82:51-59.
- 16. Iqbal J, Hira PR, Sher A, Al-Enezi AA. Diagnosis of imported malaria by Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) and histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP-2)-based immunocapture assays. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2001;64:20-23.
- 17. Iqbal J, Khalid N, Hira PR. Comparison of two commercial assays with expert microscopy for confirmation of symptomatically diagnosed malaria. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40:4675-4678.
- 18. Rubio JM, Buhigas I, Subirats M, Baquero M, Puente S, Benito A. Limited level of accuracy provided by available rapid diagnosis tests for malaria enhances the need for PCR-based reference laboratories. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:2736-2737.
- 19. Bell DR, Wilson DW, Martin LB. False-positive results of a Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2-detecting malaria rapid diagnostic test due to high sensitivity in a community with fluctuating low parasite density. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2005;73:199-203.
- 20. Hopkins H, Kambale W, Kamya MR, Staedke SG, Dorsey G, Rosenthal PJ. Comparison of HRP2- and pLDH-based rapid diagnostic tests for malaria with longitudinal follow-up in Kampala, Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007;76:1092-1097.
- 21. Na-Bangchang K, Ruengweerayut R, Mahamad P, Ruengweerayut K, Chaijaroenkul W. Declining in efficacy of a 3-day combination regimen of mefloquine-artesunate in a multi-drug resistance area along the Thai-Myanmar border. Malar J 2010;9:273-277.
- 22. Wooden J, Kyes S, Sibley CH. PCR and strain identification in Plasmodium falciparum. Parasitol Today 1993;9:303-305.
- 23. Singh B, Bobogare A, Cox-Singh J, Snounou G, Abdullah MS, Rahman HA. A genus- and species-specific nested polymerase chain reaction malaria detection assay for epidemiologic studies. Am J Trop Med Hyg 1999;60:687-692.
- 24. Farcas GA, Zhong KJ, Lovegrove FE, Graham CM, Kain KC. Evaluation of the Binax NOW ICT test versus polymerase chain reaction and microscopy for the detection of malaria in returned travelers. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2003;69:589-592.
- 25. Mendiratta DK, Bhutada K, Narang R, Narang P. Evaluation of different methods for diagnosis of P. falciparum malaria. Indian J Med Microbiol 2006;24:49-51.
- 26. Singh N, Saxena A. Usefulness of a rapid on-site Plasmodium falciparum diagnosis (Paracheck PF) in forest migrants and among the indigenous population at the site of their occupational activities in central India. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2005;72:26-29.
- 27. Guthmann JP, Ruiz A, Priotto G, Kiguli J, Bonte L, Legros D. Validity, reliability and ease of use in the field of 5 rapid tests for the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Uganda. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2002;96:254-257.
- 28. Singh N, Saxena A, Awadhia SB, Shrivastava R, Singh MP. Evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test for assessing the burden of malaria at delivery in India. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2005;73:855-858.
- 29. Ratsimbasoa A, Randriamanantena A, Raherinjafy R, Rasoarilalao N, Menard D. Which malaria rapid test for Madagascar? Field and laboratory evaluation of 3 tests and expert microscopy of samples from suspected malaria patients in Madagascar. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2007;76:481-485.
- 30. De Monbrison F, Gerome P, Chaulet JF, Wallon M, Picot S, Peyron F. Comparative diagnostic performance of two commercial rapid tests for malaria in a non-endemic area. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2004;23:784-786.
- 31. van den Broek I, Hill O, Gordillo F, Angarita B, Hamade P, Counihan H, Guthmann JP. Evaluation of three rapid tests for diagnosis of P. falciparum and P. vivax malaria in Colombia. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2006;75:1209-1215.
- 32. Gillet P, Bosselaers K, Cnops L, Bottieau E, Van Esbroeck M, Jacobs J. Evaluation of the SD FK70 malaria Ag Plasmodium vivax rapid diagnostic test in a non-endemic setting. Malar J 2009;8:129.
- 33. Murray CK, Gasser RA Jr, Magill AJ, Miller RS. Update on rapid diagnostic testing for malaria. Clin Microbiol Rev 2008;21:97-110.
- 34. Putaporntip C, Hongsrimuang T, Seethamchai S, Kobasa T, Limkittikul K, Cui L, Jongwutiwes S. Differential prevalence of Plasmodium infections and cryptic Plasmodium knowlesi malaria in humans in Thailand. J Infect Dis 2009;199:1143-1150.
- 35. White NJ. Plasmodium knowlesi: the fifth human malaria parasite. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:172-173.
Table 1.Detection of
P. falciparum and
P. vivax by Malaria Ag-Pf, Ag-Pv, and Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan tests
a in comparison with the microscopic method
Table 1.
|
Species (microscopy positive) |
Ag-Pf kit |
Ag-Pv kit |
P.f/Pan |
|
P. falciparum (211) |
229 |
0 |
232 |
|
P. vivax (218) |
0 |
219 |
200 |
|
P. falciparum and P. vivax mixed (30) |
29 |
30 |
28 |
|
Negative or P. ovale (125) |
326 |
335 |
124 |
|
Total (584) |
584 |
584 |
584 |
Table 2.The test performance
a of Malaria Ag-Pf, Ag-Pv, and Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan for detection of
P. falciparum and
P. vivax in comparison with the microscopic method
Table 2.
|
|
Ag-Pf |
Ag-Pv |
Pf/Pan |
|
Sensitivity for |
P. falciparum
|
97.6 (94.7-98.9) |
- |
99.0 (96.9-99.7) |
|
P. vivax
|
- |
98.6 (96.5-99.6) |
99.0 (95.6-99.5) |
|
Specificity |
93.3 (90.1-95.5) |
98.8 (97.0-99.5) |
94.4 (88.8-97.0) |
|
Positive predictive value (PPV) |
90.0 (86.8-92.2) |
98.2 (96.4-99.4) |
98.2 (95.6-99.5) |
|
Negative predictive value (NPV) |
98.5 (95.3-99.7) |
99.1 (97.3-99.8) |
80.3 (77.7-85.5) |
|
False positive rate |
6.7 (4.5-9.9) |
1.2 (0.5-3.0) |
5.6 (3.0-11.2) |
|
False negative rate |
2.4 (1.1-5.3) |
1.4 (0.4-35) |
6.8 (4.5-9.6) |
|
Detection limit (parasites/µl) |
> 2-5 |
> 2 |
Pf > 2-5, Pv > 2 |
Table 3.The sensitivity
a of Malaria Ag-Pf, Ag-Pv, and Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan tests for detection of
P. falciparum and
P. vivax in comparison with the microscopic method, categorized according to parasite density
Table 3.
|
Parasite density (parasites/μl) |
Ag-Pf |
Ag-Pv |
Pf/Pan |
|
Plasmodium falciparum
|
|
|
|
|
< 50 (n = 29) |
84.2 (62.4-94.5) |
- |
89.7 (73.6-96.4) |
|
50-499 (n = 74) |
98.7 (92.7-99.8) |
- |
97.3 (90.7-99.3) |
|
500-999 (n = 35) |
97.1 (85.1-99.5) |
- |
97.1 (85.5-99.5) |
|
1,000-4,999 (n = 64) |
98.4 (91.3-99.7) |
- |
98.4 (91.7-99.7) |
|
> 5,000 (n = 38) |
100 (90.8-100) |
- |
100 (90.8-100) |
|
Plasmodium vivax
|
|
|
|
|
< 50 (n = 47) |
- |
76.6 (62.8-86.4) |
78.7 (65.1-88.0) |
|
50-499 (n = 111) |
- |
95.5 (89.9-98.1) |
93.7 (87.6-96.9) |
|
500-999 (n = 35) |
- |
97.1 (85.5-99.5) |
94.3 (81.4-98.4) |
|
1,000-4,999 (n = 44) |
- |
90.9 (78.8-96.4) |
84.1 (70.6-92.1) |
|
> 5,000 (n = 11) |
- |
100 (74.1-100) |
100 (74.1-100) |
Table 4.The test performance
a of Malaria Ag-Pf, Ag-Pv, Malaria Antigen Pf/Pan, and the microscopic method for detection of
P. falciparum and
P. vivax compared with the PCR method
Table 4.
|
|
Ag-Pf |
Ag-Pv |
Pf/Pan |
Microscopic method |
|
Sensitivity for |
P. falciparum
|
91.8 (82.2-96.5) |
- |
100.0 (85.7-100) |
96.7 (83.3-99.4) |
|
P. vivax
|
- |
91.9 (83.4-96.2) |
92.6 (76.6-97.9) |
97.3 (86.2-99.5) |
|
Specificity |
66.2 (54.3-76.3) |
92.7 (82.7-97.1) |
73.9 (53.5-87.5) |
78.2 (58.1-90.3) |
|
Positive predictive value (PPV) |
70.9 (59.0-81.0) |
94.4 (84.4-98.8) |
93.5 (86.2-99.5) |
95.4 (84.3-97.6) |
|
Negative predictive value (NPV) |
90.0 (80.4-94.7) |
89.5 (81.0-93.8) |
77.3 (56.9-90.9) |
90.0 (78.1-94.2) |
|
False positive rate |
33.8 (23.7-45.7) |
7.3 (3.8-16.6) |
26.1 (12.5-46.5) |
21.7 (9.7-41.9) |
|
False negative rate |
8.2 (3.5-17.8) |
8.1 (2.9-17.3) |
4.7 (1.9-11.9) |
1.9 (0.9-21.2) |
