Comparative analysis of four malaria diagnostic tools and implications for malaria treatment in southwestern Nigeria.

Mary AigbiremoOboh; Eniyou Cheryl Oriero ORCID logo; TollaNdiaye; Aida SadikhBadiane; DaoudaNdiaye; Alfred Amambua-Ngwa ORCID logo; (2021) Comparative analysis of four malaria diagnostic tools and implications for malaria treatment in southwestern Nigeria. International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 108. pp. 377-381. ISSN 1201-9712 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.05.049
Copy

OBJECTIVES: One of the problems encountered in malaria control and elimination is inaccurate diagnosis, resulting from the degree of sensitivity of the different malaria diagnostic tools. Even though microscopy remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, more sensitive and robust diagnostic tools such as polymerase chain reactions (PCR) are used in research settings to monitor interventions and track sub-microscopic infections due to some of the drawbacks of microscopy. Since diagnosis is a critical determinant for rational malaria treatment, it is imperative that accurate diagnosis must be assured for an effective treatment plan. Therefore, this study compared two routinely used point of care malaria diagnostic tools with two molecular tools and discussed their implication for malaria treatment. DESIGN: In this study, 436 individuals with suspected malaria were sampled and systematically tested using four methods, namely rapid diagnostic test (henceforth referred to as malaria RDT- mRDT), microscopy, nested PCR (nPCR), and quantitative PCR (qPCR). Test sensitivities and specificities were compared, and their level of concordance was determined. RESULTS: With nPCR as the gold standard, a false positivity rate of 42.2%, 8.9%, and 57.8% was obtained for mRDT, microscopy, and qPCR. Similarly, false negativity rates of 12.5%, 62.5%, and 0.8% were obtained for each of the methods mentioned above, respectively. Of all the tools assessed, qPCR gave the highest sensitivity (99.2%) and moderate specificity (42.2%), followed by the mRDT kit used (87.5%). CONCLUSIONS: With the detection of a high false positivity rate based on mRDT and a substantial proportion of sub-microscopic carriers in this study area by nested/quantitative PCR, we recommend that these molecular tools should be in specialized laboratories within the region to (i) track and treat sub-microscopic carriers to prevent their contribution to malaria transmission; (ii) provide reliable epidemiological data using high throughput testing tools for evaluating malaria interventions.



picture_as_pdf
1-s2.0-S1201971221004513-main.pdf
subject
Published Version
Available under Creative Commons: 3.0

View Download

Explore Further

Read more research from the creator(s):

Find work associated with the faculties and division(s):

Find work from this publication: