This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Malaria is a potent burden on public healthcare worldwide due to requiring rapid diagnosis and treatment. Nowadays, prompt diagnosis with rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has been widely accepted as an effective diagnostic technique in malaria-endemic countries, primarily due to their easy operation, fast output, and straightforward interpretation. The global availability and use of RDTs have gradually grown over recent decades as field-applicable diagnostic tests for the reliable confirmation of malaria infection and proper case management. This study was conducted to evaluate diagnostic performance of 3 commercially available malaria RDT kits : BIOCREDITTM Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH), Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII), and Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) (where pLDH and pHRPII stand for plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase and histidine-rich protein 2, respectively) for the specific detection of Plasmodium falciparum. A total of 1,129 blood samples including 95 blood samples, confirmed as vivax malaria infection by microscopic examinations and a nested-PCR method, were tested for falciparum malaria infection. The overall sensitivity and specificity of Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII), Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH), and Pf(pLDH) for P. falciparum were 99.0% and 100%, 95.8% and 100%, and 100% and 100%, respectively. It is proposed that the 3 RDT kits perform reliable level of diagnostic accuracy of detection for P. falciparum parasites.
Malaria is one of the oldest known and most prevalent parasitic diseases with an estimated 3.2 billion people being at risk of infection [1]. Despite significant control efforts, morbidity and mortality induced by malaria remain high in many developing countries, especially in areas characterized by tropical and subtropical ecosystems [2–5]. In practice, the accurate diagnosis of malaria is the primary tool for effecting rational therapy. Still, access to adequate diagnosis and treatment is insufficient, resulting in a large treatment gap where many cases are managed sub-optimally or even go untreated. Thus, it is pivotal to have sensitive and specific malaria diagnostic tools to prevent the injudicious use of anti-malaria drugs and overtreatment. The microscopic examination of Giemsa-, Wright-, or Wright-Giemsa-stained blood smears as a routine reference test has been used as the gold standard for malaria diagnosis in many malaria-endemic areas despite the infrastructural and technical requirements that are not always available in resource-limited settings [6–8]. Thus, many medical resources cannot offer round-the-clock dependable smear-based diagnosis. Inconsistency due to intense inter-observer variability, particularly for samples with low parasitemia or mixed Plasmodium species, has been regarded as a major shortcoming of microscopic examination [8]. These limitations have fostered the development of non-microscopic alternatives for the diagnosis of malaria, especially in field diagnosis [9–12].
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a comparative study of some rapid diagnostic kits (RDTs) on selected samples containing P. falciparum and P. vivax in 2008 [13], studies using clinical samples have been highly informative regarding test performance in routine usage. In practice, malaria RDTs from different companies can show wide variation, especially in terms of performance characteristics, and can be affected by many factors that potentially cause false-negative results [14]. This study was performed to determine functionality of 3 commercially available RDTs Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH), Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII), and Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) for specific detection of P. falciparum.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethics statements
The anonymous samples used in this study were donated from the Global Resource Bank of Parasitic Protozoa Pathogens at the Inha University School of Medicine (NRF-2017M3A9B8069530), some of which were exempted from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and the rest were frozen resources used after the IRB had approved the research (Inha 1712081A).
Samples
The blood samples used in this study were retrieved from the −80°C stock in Department of Tropical Medicine, Inha University School of Medicine. The samples used in this study were confirmed using 18S ribosomal RNA-based genus-specific nested-PCR analyses for P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. malariae, and P. ovale [15]. The P. falciparum-positive samples were of 191 Ugandan patients [16]. The P. vivax-positive samples were collected from 95 Korean patients by the Global Resource Bank of Parasitic Protozoa Pathogens in the Inha University School of Medicine. The Plasmodium-negative blood samples were of 843 healthy people. Positive samples of P. malariae and P. ovale were excluded from this study.
Analysis on functionality of RDTs
All blood samples were assayed with each of the 3 BIOCREDITTM Malaria RDTs: Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) (Lot. No. H016005), Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH) (Lot. No. H019005), and Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) (Lot. No. H052005) manufactured by RapiGEN Inc. (Gunpo, Korea). These kits were designed to detect P. falciparum-specific pLDH and P. vivax-specific pLDH, P. falciparum-specific pLDH, and P. falciparum-specific pLDH and pHRPII, respectively. Each RDT comprised a membrane strip pre-coated with antibodies specific to each target protein and was tested according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In brief, 5 μl of whole blood was loaded into the sample well of the device and 3 drops of assay diluent were added to the buffer well. The test results, interpreted within 35 min, were recorded as negative if only the control line appeared, which indicates that the test had been performed well. Positive or negative results for the respective malaria parasites are based on the color code shown on the strip regardless of test line intensity. Each sample was blinded against the results obtained from the other diagnostic tests. All kits were tested, and the results validated to ensure strict adherence to the manufacturer’s statements.
Limit of detection (LOD)
Samples with known parasite counts per μl of whole blood determined by an expert research microscopist were used to test the LOD of the 3 Malaria RDTs. Three samples of each relevant Plasmodium spp. were chosen: for P. falciparum, 5,440 (Pf1), 3,104 (Pf2) and 995 (Pf3) parasites/μl, and for P. vivax, 2,228 (Pv1), 1,108 (Pv2), and 6,507 (Pv3) parasites/μl. Frozen whole blood samples were thawed and then diluted in fresh malaria-negative, non-endemic country whole blood to produce parasitemia with the diluting blood serving as a negative control by serial dilution.
Data analysis
The 3 sets of RDT results were compared with the microscopic results as the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV), and negative-predictive value (NPV) of each RDT were calculated. Variable measures were number of true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false positives (FP), and false negatives (FN). Sensitivity was calculated as TP/(TP+FN), specificity as TN/(TN+FP), PPV as TP/(TP+FP), and NPV as TN/(TN+FN) [17].
RESULTS
Ten out of 191 P. falciparum-positive samples were negative for the Pf(pLDH) antigen in Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH) (Table 1), 10/191 positive samples were negative for the Pf(pLDH) antigen and 2/191 positive ones were negative for the Pf(pHRPII) antigen in Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) (Table 1), and 8/191 positive samples were negative for the Pf(pLDH) antigen in Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) (Table 2). Sensitivity and specificity of Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH) were 94.8% and 100%, respectively (Table 3). Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) showed sensitivity 94.8% and specificity 100% for Pf(pLDH), and 99.0% and 100% for Pf(pHRPII). Overall sensitivity and specificity were 99.0% and 100%, respectively (Table 3). Those of Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) were 95.8% and 100% for Pf(pLDH), and 100% and 100% for Pv(pLDH), respectively (Table 4).
PPV and NPV of Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH) were 100% and 93.8% (Table 3), while those of Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) were 100% and 98.8% for Pf(pLDH), and 100% and 99.8% for Pf(pHRPII), respectively (Table 3). Those of Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) were 100% and 99.1% for Pf(pLDH) and 100% and 100% for Pv(pLDH), respectively (Table 4).
LODs for P. falciparum with Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH) and Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) RDTs were 8.4 and 10.1 parasites/μl on average, respectively. LODs for P. falciparum and P. vivax with Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) RDT were 7.6 and 38.2 parasites/μl on average, respectively (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
In the present study, we examined the ability of the Malaria Ag RDTs to diagnose falciparum malaria. To determine the appropriate test for field use for P. falciparum, study population consisted of 2 groups of patients from Uganda for falciparum malaria and from Korea for vivax malaria. According to WHO recommendation [4], RDTs should show greater than 95% sensitivity to be useful and efficient diagnostic tools.
The WHO estimates that 219 million cases occurred during 2017 with 435,000 deaths [18]. Most malaria cases in 2017 were in Africa (approximately 200 million or 92%), followed by South-East Asia (5%) and the Eastern Mediterranean region (2%). Prompt diagnosis and treatment is the most effective means to prevent a mild case of malaria from advancing into severe disease and even death. Moreover, the clinical characteristics of malaria are nonspecific and overlap primarily with those of other febrile diseases. Thus, the WHO recommends that all patients should have a parasite-specific laboratory test performed to confirm the clinical symptoms. P. falciparum is the most prevalent malaria parasite in Africa, accounting for 99.7% of estimated malaria cases in 2017, as well as in South-East Asia (62.8%), and the Eastern Mediterranean (69%) and the Western Pacific regions (71.9%) [18].
In the USA, a malaria test is the only one cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the in-vitro diagnosis of malaria. That malaria test has sensitivities of 100% and 81.6% for the detection of P. falciparum and P. vivax, respectively, in venous blood samples [19]. According to the WHO recommendations for RDT performance, only 2 RDTs with a reported sensitivity greater than 95% have been approved: 96.8% and 95.2% [20]. However, present study showed that sensitivity of the 3 Malaria Ag kits was 99.0% overall when using Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) RDT kit. This kit had high sensitivity and was in strong agreement with the microscopic examinations and the 18s ribosomal RNA-based nested-PCR results. HRPII-based RDTs commonly provide P. falciparum sensitivity higher than 90.0% in clinical cases [21,22]. However, the test results with pLDH assays have been shown to vary among studies [4,23]. In the present study, antigen Pf(pLDH) in the Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH) and Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) RDTs showed 94.8% sensitivity. Interestingly, sensitivity of Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) was 99.0% and that of Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH) was 95.8%. It is understandable that RDTs can be influenced by several factors such as antigenic variability of the target protein, antigen persistence and parasite density in blood samples [24,25].
Most studies on the diagnostic serology of Plasmodium spp. include immunoassays using limited antigen, such as HRPII. Nowadays, these almost always contain the highly conserved immunodominant epitope of HRPII at a minimum. Despite the earlier detection of Plasmodium spp. in patients’ blood samples, this first-generation RDT kit using HRPII has shown decreased sensitivity in detecting malaria infection. In general, PfHRPII-based RDTs are more sensitive and heat-stable than RDTs that detect other malaria antigens, such as pan (all species) or P. falciparum-specific pLDH or aldolase [26,27]. However, antibodies against PfHRPII can cross-react with proteins expressed by another member of the hrp gene family such as pfhrp3 due to a strong similarity in the amino acid sequences. PfHRPII RDTs also have limitations due to the genetic variability and polymorphism of the pfhrp2 gene, which can affect its detection by RDTs [28–30]. The prevalence of pfhrp2 gene deletion varies from location to location [31] and strains with partial or total pfhrp2 deletion have been reported in South America, Africa, and India [32]. Moreover, a recent study in India reported a 2.4% prevalence of pfhrp2 gene deletion [33]. These genetic variations in the region of the pfhrp2 gene have caused a high rate of false-negative results when using RDTs, and the companies that make them are under pressure to develop new specific antigenic proteins as useful and essential target(s) for P. falciparum detection. Furthermore, RDTs used to detect malaria in pregnant women can show low sensitivity, possibly due to the sequestration of antigens in the placental circulation [34]. Therefore, it is critical to develop and improve alternative biomarkers of P. falciparum for the next generation RDTs for malaria parasite detection [35]. Thus, in the present study, we demonstrated that the monoclonal antibodies against pLDH in 3 commercially available 2nd generation Malaria Ag RDTs are better candidates for diagnosing falciparum malaria infection than the 1st generation HRPII-based RDT kits.
Previously we evaluated the diagnostic performances of 2 commercially available malaria RDT kits, Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) and competitor’s Ag Pf/Pv(pHRPII/pLDH) for detectability of Plasmodium species in blood samples collected from Ugandan patients with malaria. The detection sensitivity of Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) and competitor for P. falciparum was 87.8% and 89.6%, respectively, and the specificities of the 2 RDTs were 100% for P. falciparum and mixed P. falciparum/P. vivax samples [8]. A high panel detection scores were shown with other kits, even at low parasitemia, in Round 4 of the WHO/FIND study [26]. The sensitivity and specificity of the RDTs assayed in this study were higher than estimates of those previously developed commercial RDTs. Although their diagnostic performances in a field setting have yet not been established, these Malaria Ag kits provided good diagnostic performances with P. falciparum/P. vivax -positive blood samples at a laboratory setting. Considering their performance results, we recommend these RDT kits as an appropriate option for screening for P. falciparum at health facilities with limited human resources and infrastructure.
In conclusion, we evaluated the clinical performance of 3 Malaria Ag kits for P. falciparum using whole blood samples compared to microscopic examination as the gold standard and molecular nested-PCR tests. The accuracies of the RDTs were similar to or better than those of the RDTs currently recommended by WHO [20]. Therefore, Malaria Ag kits were shown to be reliable diagnostic kits to detect falciparum malaria infections and can contribute to malaria control efforts as a possible replacement for microscopic examination in front-line diagnosis. For further studies, more extensive tests with mixed infections of P. falciparum and P. vivax and with low parasitemia values from various global populations are needed to fully evaluate the diagnostic performance of the 3 Malaria Ag kits.
Notes
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by grants from the NRF of Korea (NRF-2018R1D1A1B07047721, YYB), by the Inha University Research Fund (TSK) and through the Global Resource Bank of Parasitic Protozoa Pathogens of Inha University School of Medicine (NRF-2017M3A9B8069530, TSK).
Table 1
Comparison of P. falciparum detection by Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) and microscopic examination (n=1,034)
Table 1
Microscopic examination
No. sample
Pf(pLDH)
Pf(pHRPII)
Result
No. positive
No. negative
No. positive
No. negative
Positive
191
181
10
189
2
Negative
843
0
843
0
843
Total
1,034
181
853
189
845
Table 2
Comparison of P. falciparum and P. vivax detection by Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) and microscopic examination (n=1,129)
Performance comparisonof Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) microscopic examination (n=1,129)
Table 4
Sensitivity (%) (95% CI*)
Specificity (%) (95% CI)
PPV(%) (95% CI)
NPV(%) (95% CI)
Accuracy (%) (95% CI)
Pf(pLDH)
95.8 (91.9–98.2)
100 (97.6–100)
100
99.1 (98.2–99.5)
99.2 (98.5–99.7)
Pv(pLDH)
100 (96.2–100)
100 (99.6–100)
100
100 (99.6–100)
100 (99.6–100)
Table 5
Detection limit of 3 Malaria Ag kits
Table 5
RDT kit
Sample
Test antigen
LOD (parasites/μl)
Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH)
Pf1
PfLDH
13
Pf2
PfLDH
7.5
Pf3
PfLDH
4.7
Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII)
Pf1
PfpLDH
13
PfHRPII
13
Pf2
PfpLDH
15
PfHRPII
15
Pf3
PfpLDH
9.5
PfHRPII
2.4
Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH)
Pf1
Pf
3.2
Pv
Negative
Pf2
Pf
15
Pv
Negative
Pf3
Pf
4.7
Pv
Negative
Pv1
Pf
Negative
Pv
42.2
Pv2
Pf
Negative
Pv
40.6
Pv3
Pf
Negative
Pv
31.7
*Three samples were chosen each from Plasmodium sp.: for P. falciparum, 5,440 (Pf1), 3,104 (Pf2) and 995 (Pf3) parasites/μl, and for P. vivax, 2,228 (Pv1), 1,108 (Pv2), and 6,507 (Pv3) parasites/μl.
References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The History of Malaria, An Ancient Disease [Internet]; Washington DC, USA: Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/
2. Singh B, Daneshvar C. Human infections and detection of Plasmodium knowlesi
. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013;26:165-184.
3. Rubio JM, Buhigas M, 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.
4. World Health Organization. Malaria Diagnosis New Perspectives: Report of the Joint WHO/USAID Informal Consultation. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization; 1999.
5. Casalino E, Le Bras J, Chaussin F, Fichelle A, Bouvet E. Predictive factors of malaria in travelers to areas where malaria is endemic. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1625-1630.
8. Bahk YY, Park SH, Lee W, Jin K, Ahn SK, Na BK, Kim TS. Comparative assessment of diagnostic performances of two commercial rapid diagnostic test kits for detection of Plasmodium spp. in Ugandan patients with malaria. Korean J Parasitol 2018;56:447-452.
9. World Health Organization. Information Note on Recommended Selection Criteria for Procurement of Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs). Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization; 2016.
11. Incardona S, Serra-Casas E, Champouillon N, Nsanzabana C, Cunningham J, González IJ. Global survey of malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) sales, procurement and lot verification practices: assessing the use of the WHO-FIND malaria RDT evaluation programme (2011–2014). Malar J 2017;16:196.
12. Chilton D, Malik AN, Armstrong M, Kettelhut M, Parker-Williams J, Chiodini PL. Use of rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosis of malaria in the UK. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:862-866.
15. 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.
16. Bahk YY, Cho PY, Ahn SK, Lee WJ, Kim TS. An evaluation of active case detection in malaria control program in Kiyuni Parish of Kyanwanzi district, Uganda. Korean J Parasitol 2018;56:625-632.
17. Tjitra E, Suprianto S, Dyer M, Currie BJ, Anstey NM. Field evaluation of the ICT malaria Pf/Pv immunochromatographic test for detection of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in patients with a presumptive clinical diagnosis of malaria in Eastern Indonesia. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:2412-2417.
20. World Health Organization. Malaria Rapid Diagnosis: Making it Work. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization; 2003.
21. Killian AH, Kanagamble G, byamukama W, Langi P, Weis P, von Sonnenburg F. Application of the ParaSight-F dipstick test for malaria diagnosis in a district control program. Acta Trop 1999;72:281-293.
22. Guthmann JP, Ruiz A, Priotto G, Kiguli J, Bonte L, Legros D. Validity, reliability and ease of use in the field of five rapid tests for the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Uganda. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 2002;96:254-257.
23. Singh N, Valecha N, Nagpal N, Nagpal AC, Mishra SS, Varma HS, Subbarao SK. The hospital- and field-based performance of the OptiMAL test, for malaria diagnosis and treatment monitoring in central India. Ann Trop Med Parasitol 2003;97:5-13.
24. Lee N, Gatton ML, Pelecanos A, Bubb M, Gonzales I, Bell D, Cheng Q, McCarthy JS. Identification of optimal epitopes for Plasmodium falciparum rapid diagnostic tests that target histidine-rich proteins 2 and 3. J Clin Micriobiol 2012;50:1397-1405.
25. Houzé S, Boly MD, Le Bras J, Deloron P, Faucher JE.
PfHRP2 and PfLDH antigen detection for monitoring the efficacy of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Malaria J 2009;8:211.
26. World Health Organization. Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test Performance. Results of WHO Product Testing of Malaria RDTs: Round 4. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization; 2012.
27. World Health Organization. Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test Performance. Summary Results of WHO Product Testing of Malaria RDTs: Round 1–5 (2008–2013). Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization; 2014.
28. Mariette N, Bamadas C, Bouchier C, Tichit M, Ménard D. Country-wide assessment of the genetic polymorphism in Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax antigens detected with rapid diagnostic tests for malaria. Malar J 2008;7:219.
29. Nima MK, Hougard T, Hossain ME, Kibria MG, Mohon AN, Johora FT, Rahman R, Haque R, Alam MS. Case report: a case of Plasmodium falciparum hrp2 and hrp3 gene mutation in Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med. Hyg 2017;97:1155-1158.
30. Berhane A, Anderson K, Mihreteab S, Gresty K, Rogier E, Mohamed S, Hagos F, Embaye G, Chinorumba A, Zehaie A, Dowd S, Waters NC, Gatton ML, Udhayakumar V, Cheng Q, Cunningham J. Major threat to malaria control programs by Plasmodium falciparum lacking histidine-rich protein 2, Eritrea. Emerg Infect Dis 2018;24:462-470.
31. Cheng Q, Gatton ML, Barnwell J, Chiodini P, McCarthy J, Bell D, Cunningham J.
Plasmodium falciparum parasites lacking histidine-rich protein 2 and 3: a review and recommendations for accurate reporting. Malar J 2014;13:283.
32. Deme AB, Park DJ, Bei AK, Sarr O, Badiane AS, Gueye Pel H, Ahouidi A, Ndir O, Mboup S, Wirth DF, Ndiaye D, Volkman SK. Analysis of pfhrp2 genetic diversity in Senegal and implications for use of rapid diagnostic tests. Malar J 2014;13:34.
33. Bharti PK, Chandel HS, Ahmad A, Krishna S, Udhayakumar V, Singh N. Prevalence of pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 gene deletion in Plasmodium falciparum population in eight highly endemic states in India. PLoS One 2016;11:e0157949.
Diagnostic accuracy of novel Biocredit species-specific LDH-based immunochromatographic assay for Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis Behailu Taye Gebremeskele, Eyob Getu, Abel Desalegn Demeke, Alayu Bogale, Gemechu Churiso BMC Infectious Diseases.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Evaluation of NxTek™ Eliminate Malaria-PF test and biocredit rapid diagnostic tests for detecting Plasmodium species in Southern Ethiopia Alayu Bogale, Samuel Tefera, Behailu Taye Gebremeskele, Asaye Mitiku, Teshome Degefa BMC Infectious Diseases.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Diagnostic gaps in light microscopy for malaria case management and control in Dilla Zuria Health Facility, southern Ethiopia Alayu Bogale, Samuel Tefera, Asaye Mitiku, Zerihun Solomon, Tadesse Misganaw Scientific Reports.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Data-driven diagnostic reform in Ethiopia's transition to pLDH-based malaria rapid diagnostic tests amid rising pfhrp2/3 deletions: a multisite, facility-based, cross-sectional study Ayalew Jejaw Zeleke, Migbaru Keffale Bezabih, Legesse Alamerie Ejigu, Lina Alemayehu, Fikregabrail Aberra Kassa, Betelhem Akililu Kebede, Mulugeta Demisse, Matiwos Kidane Ayele, Solomon Sisay, Alayu Bogale, Daniel Mussa, Melat Abdo, Natnael Lemessa Hunder The Lancet Microbe.2026; : 101515. CrossRef
Performance and usability evaluation of three LDH-based malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Kédougou, Senegal Babacar Souleymane Sambe, Stephanie Zobrist, William Sheahan, Divya Soni, Aissatou Diagne, Ibrahima Sarr, Arona Sabene Diatta, Serigne Ousmane Mbacke Diaw, Allison Golden, Hannah Slater, Ihn Kyung Jang, Nerie Roa, Sampa Pal, Fatoumata Diene Sarr, Joseph F Parasites & Vectors.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Performance of BIOCREDIT Pf/Pv lactate dehydrogenase-based malaria rapid diagnostic test among pregnant women with suspected malaria infection in Bahir Dar City Administration, northwest Ethiopia Banchamlak Tegegne, Endalkachew Nibret, Abaineh Munshea, Mekonnen Teferi, Mulat Yimer, Getaneh Alemu, Delenasaw Yewhalaw, Dylan R. Pillai, Samuel Kofi Tchum PLOS One.2025; 20(5): e0322362. CrossRef
Assessment of the Performance of Lactate Dehydrogenase-Based Rapid Diagnostic Test for Malaria in Djibouti in 2022–2023 Rahma Abdi Moussa, Nasserdine Papa Mze, Houssein Yonis Arreh, Aicha Abdillahi Hamoud, Kahiya Mohamed Alaleh, Fatouma Mohamed Aden, Abdoul-Razak Yonis Omar, Warsama Osman Abdi, Samatar Kayad Guelleh, Abdoul-Ilah Ahmed Abdi, Leonardo K. Basco, Bouh Abdi Kha Diagnostics.2024; 14(3): 262. CrossRef
Comparison of three rapid diagnostic tests for Plasmodium falciparum diagnosis in Ghana Tolulope Adeyemi Kayode, Agyapong Kofi Addo, Thomas Kwame Addison, Austine Tweneboah, Stephen Opoku Afriyie, Dawood Ackom Abbas, Ayesha Seth, Abraham K. Badu-Tawiah, Kingsley Badu, Cristian Koepfli Malaria Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Performance of highly sensitive and conventional rapid diagnostic tests for clinical and subclinical Plasmodium falciparum infections, and hrp2/3 deletion status in Burundi David Niyukuri, Denis Sinzinkayo, Emma V. Troth, Colins O. Oduma, Mediatrice Barengayabo, Mireille Ndereyimana, Aurel Holzschuh, Claudia A. Vera-Arias, Yilekal Gebre, Kingsley Badu, Joseph Nyandwi, Dismas Baza, Elizabeth Juma, Cristian Koepfli, Sarah Aubu PLOS Global Public Health.2022; 2(7): e0000828. CrossRef
Diagnostic accuracy and limit of detection of ten malaria parasite lactate dehydrogenase-based rapid tests for Plasmodium knowlesi and P. falciparum Angelica F. Tan, Sitti Saimah binti Sakam, Giri S. Rajahram, Timothy William, Mohammad Faruq Abd Rachman Isnadi, Sylvia Daim, Bridget E. Barber, Steven Kho, Colin J. Sutherland, Nicholas M. Anstey, Seda Yerlikaya, Donelly A. van Schalkwyk, Matthew J. Grig Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests: Literary Review and Recommendation for a Quality Assurance, Quality Control Algorithm Michael J. Kavanaugh, Steven E. Azzam, David M. Rockabrand Diagnostics.2021; 11(5): 768. CrossRef
Recent Spatial and Temporal Trends of Malaria in Korea Yeong Hoon Kim, Hye-Jin Ahn, Dongjae Kim, Sung-Jong Hong, Tong-Soo Kim, Ho-Woo Nam The Korean Journal of Parasitology.2021; 59(6): 585. CrossRef
Diagnostic Performance of Three Rapid Diagnostic Test Kits for Malaria Parasite Plasmodium falciparum
Diagnostic Performance of Three Rapid Diagnostic Test Kits for Malaria Parasite Plasmodium falciparum
Comparison of P. falciparum detection by Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) and microscopic examination (n=1,034)
Microscopic examination
No. sample
Pf(pLDH)
Pf(pHRPII)
Result
No. positive
No. negative
No. positive
No. negative
Positive
191
181
10
189
2
Negative
843
0
843
0
843
Total
1,034
181
853
189
845
Comparison of P. falciparum and P. vivax detection by Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) and microscopic examination (n=1,129)
Microscopic examination*
No. sample
Pf(pLDH)
Pv(pLDH)
Result
No. positive
No. negative
No. positive
No. negative
P. falciparum
191
183
8
0
0
P. vivax
95
0
0
95
0
Negative
843
0
843
0
843
Total
1,129
183
851
95
843
*These samples were tested and confirmed using nested-PCR.
Performance of Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) compared to microscopic examination (n=1,034)
RDT
Sensitivity (%) (95% CI*)
Specificity (%) (95% CI)
PPV (%) (95% CI)
NPV (%) (95% CI)
Accuracy (%) (95% CI)
Pf(pLDH)
94.8 (90.6–97.5)
100 (97.6–100)
100
93.8 (97.98–99.4)
99.2 (98.2–99.5)
Pf(pHRPII)
99.0 (96.3–99.9)
100 (99.6–100)
100
99.8 (99.1–99.9)
99.8 (99.3–100)
Pf(pLDH/pHRPII)
99.0 (96.3–99.9)
100 (99.6–100)
100
99.8 (99.1–99.9)
99.8 (99.3–100)
*Confidence interval.
Performance comparisonof Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) microscopic examination (n=1,129)
Sensitivity (%) (95% CI*)
Specificity (%) (95% CI)
PPV(%) (95% CI)
NPV(%) (95% CI)
Accuracy (%) (95% CI)
Pf(pLDH)
95.8 (91.9–98.2)
100 (97.6–100)
100
99.1 (98.2–99.5)
99.2 (98.5–99.7)
Pv(pLDH)
100 (96.2–100)
100 (99.6–100)
100
100 (99.6–100)
100 (99.6–100)
Detection limit of 3 Malaria Ag kits
RDT kit
Sample
Test antigen
LOD (parasites/μl)
Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH)
Pf1
PfLDH
13
Pf2
PfLDH
7.5
Pf3
PfLDH
4.7
Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII)
Pf1
PfpLDH
13
PfHRPII
13
Pf2
PfpLDH
15
PfHRPII
15
Pf3
PfpLDH
9.5
PfHRPII
2.4
Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH)
Pf1
Pf
3.2
Pv
Negative
Pf2
Pf
15
Pv
Negative
Pf3
Pf
4.7
Pv
Negative
Pv1
Pf
Negative
Pv
42.2
Pv2
Pf
Negative
Pv
40.6
Pv3
Pf
Negative
Pv
31.7
*Three samples were chosen each from Plasmodium sp.: for P. falciparum, 5,440 (Pf1), 3,104 (Pf2) and 995 (Pf3) parasites/μl, and for P. vivax, 2,228 (Pv1), 1,108 (Pv2), and 6,507 (Pv3) parasites/μl.
Table 1
Comparison of P. falciparum detection by Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) and microscopic examination (n=1,034)
Table 2
Comparison of P. falciparum and P. vivax detection by Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) and microscopic examination (n=1,129)
These samples were tested and confirmed using nested-PCR.
Table 3
Performance of Malaria Ag Pf(pLDH/pHRPII) compared to microscopic examination (n=1,034)
Confidence interval.
Table 4
Performance comparisonof Malaria Ag Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) microscopic examination (n=1,129)
Table 5
Detection limit of 3 Malaria Ag kits
Three samples were chosen each from Plasmodium sp.: for P. falciparum, 5,440 (Pf1), 3,104 (Pf2) and 995 (Pf3) parasites/μl, and for P. vivax, 2,228 (Pv1), 1,108 (Pv2), and 6,507 (Pv3) parasites/μl.
