首页> 外文期刊>Malaria Journal >Comparison of rapid diagnostic test Plasmotec Malaria-3, microscopy, and quantitative real-time PCR for diagnoses of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections in Mimika Regency, Papua, Indonesia
【24h】

Comparison of rapid diagnostic test Plasmotec Malaria-3, microscopy, and quantitative real-time PCR for diagnoses of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections in Mimika Regency, Papua, Indonesia

机译:快速诊断测试Plasmotec Malaria-3,显微镜和定量实时PCR在印度尼西亚巴布亚州Mimika Regency诊断恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫感染的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The World Health Organization recommends malaria be diagnosed by standard microscopy or rapid diagnostic test (RDT) before treatment. RDTs have been used with greater frequency in the absence of matching blood slide confirmation in the majority of RDT reported cases in Mimika Regency, Papua Province, Indonesia. Given the importance of RDT in current health system as point-of-care tool, careful validation of RDT product performance for providing accurate malaria diagnosis is critical. Methods Plasmotec Malaria-3 (XW-P07) performance was evaluated by comparing it with paired blood film microscopy and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Consecutive whole blood samples were derived from one clinic in Mimika as part of routine passive malaria case detection. RDT results were read by two trained technicians and interpreted by consensus. Expert microscopic examination of blood slides was cross-checked by observer-blinded second reader and a third examiner if discordant between examinations. qPCR was used as the ‘gold standard’, followed by microscopy for the outcome/disease variable. Comparison analysis included sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive and negative predictive values (PPV & NPV), and other diagnostic screening performance measures for detecting Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax infections. Results Overall malaria positive samples from qPCR was 42.2% (175/415 samples); and from matching blood slides 40.5% (168/415) of which those infections with relatively low parasite densities ≤100/μl blood was 5.7% of P. falciparum and 16.5% of P. vivax samples examined. Overall RDT performance when compared with microscopy for detecting P. falciparum was Sn:92%, Sp:96.6%, PPV:88%, NPV:97.8%, Kappa:0.87; and for P. vivax Sn:72.9%, Sp:99.1%, PPV:95.4%, NPV:93.4%, Kappa:0.79. Overall RDT performance when compared with qPCR for detecting P. falciparum was Sn:92%, Sp:96.6%, PPV:88%, NPV:97.8%, Kappa:0.87; and for P. vivax Sn:66%, Sp:99.1%, PPV:95.4%, NPV:90.9%, Kappa:0.73. Conclusions Plasmotec Malaria-3 test showed good overall performance scores in precision for detecting P. falciparum, but lower values regarding sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio for detecting P. vivax, a finding partly associated with greater frequency of lower density P. vivax infections compared to P. falciparum in this study. In particular, the negative likelihood ratio (>0.1) for P. vivax detection indicates RDT lacked sufficient discriminating exclusion power falling below general acceptance criteria.
机译:背景世界卫生组织建议在治疗前通过标准显微镜或快速诊断测试(RDT)诊断疟疾。在印度尼西亚巴布亚省Mimika Regency的大多数RDT报告病例中,在没有匹配血片确认的情况下,RDT的使用频率更高。考虑到RDT在当前卫生系统中作为即时医疗工具的重要性,因此仔细验证RDT产品性能以提供准确的疟疾诊断至关重要。方法通过与配对的血膜显微镜和定量实时荧光定量PCR(qPCR)进行比较,评估Plasmotec Malaria-3(XW-P07)的性能。连续的全血样本来自Mimika的一家诊所,作为常规被动性疟疾病例检测的一部分。 RDT结果由两名训练有素的技术人员阅读并以共识解释。如果检查之间不一致,则由观察者盲的第二阅读器和第三检查者对血片的专家显微镜检查进行交叉检查。将qPCR用作“金标准”,然后使用显微镜检查结果/疾病变量。对比分析包括灵敏度(Sn),特异性(Sp),阳性和阴性预测值(PPV和NPV),以及用于检测恶性疟原虫和间日疟原虫感染的其他诊断性筛查性能指标。结果qPCR的总体疟疾阳性样本为42.2%(175/415样本);并从相匹配的载玻片中抽取40.5%(168/415),其中相对较低的寄生虫密度≤100/μl血液的那些感染是恶性疟原虫的5.7%和间日疟原虫的16.5%。与显微镜相比,检测恶性疟原虫的总体RDT性能为Sn:92%,Sp:96.6%,PPV:88%,NPV:97.8%,Kappa:0.87;间日疟原虫Sn:72.9%,Sp:99.1%,PPV:95.4%,NPV:93.4%,Kappa:0.79。与qPCR相比,检测恶性疟原虫的总体RDT性能为Sn:92%,Sp:96.6%,PPV:88%,NPV:97.8%,Kappa:0.87;对于间日疟原虫,Sn:66%,Sp:99.1%,PPV:95.4%,NPV:90.9%,Kappa:0.73。结论Plasmotec Malaria-3测试在检测恶性疟原虫方面显示出良好的整体性能得分,但在检测间日疟原虫方面的敏感性和阴性可能性比值较低,这一发现与较低密度间日疟原虫感染的发生频率相比,部分相关性更高。本研究中恶性疟原虫。特别是,间日疟原虫检测的负似然比(> 0.1)表明RDT缺乏足够的区分性排除能力,低于一般接受标准。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号