Malaria rapid diagnostic kits: quality of packaging, design and labelling of boxes and components and readability and accuracy of information inserts

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The present study assessed malaria RDT kits for adequate and correct packaging, design and labelling of boxes and components. Information inserts were studied for readability and accuracy of information.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Criteria for packaging, design, labelling and information were compiled from Directive 98/79 of the European Community (EC), relevant World Health Organization (WHO) documents and studies on end-users' performance of RDTs. Typography and readability level (Flesch-Kincaid grade level) were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-two RDT kits from 22 manufacturers were assessed, 35 of which had evidence of good manufacturing practice according to available information (<it>i.e</it>. CE-label affixed or inclusion in the WHO list of ISO13485:2003 certified manufacturers). Shortcomings in devices were (i) insufficient place for writing sample identification (n = 40) and (ii) ambiguous labelling of the reading window (n = 6). Buffer vial labels were lacking essential information (n = 24) or were of poor quality (n = 16). Information inserts had elevated readability levels (median Flesch Kincaid grade 8.9, range 7.1 - 12.9) and user-unfriendly typography (median font size 8, range 5 - 10). Inadequacies included (i) no referral to biosafety (n = 18), (ii) critical differences between depicted and real devices (n = 8), (iii) figures with unrealistic colours (n = 4), (iv) incomplete information about RDT line interpretations (n = 31) and no data on test characteristics (n = 8). Other problems included (i) kit names that referred to <it>Plasmodium vivax </it>although targeting a pan-species <it>Plasmodium </it>antigen (n = 4), (ii) not stating the identity of the pan-species antigen (n = 2) and (iii) slight but numerous differences in names displayed on boxes, device packages and information inserts. Three CE labelled RDT kits produced outside the EC had no authorized representative affixed and the shape and relative dimensions of the CE symbol affixed did not comply with the Directive 98/79/EC. Overall, RDTs with evidence of GMP scored better compared to those without but inadequacies were observed in both groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Overall, malaria RDTs showed shortcomings in quality of construction, design and labelling of boxes, device packages, devices and buffers. Information inserts were difficult to read and lacked relevant information.</p

Evaluation of the rapid diagnostic test SDFK40 (Pf-pLDH/pan-pLDH) for the diagnosis of malaria in a non-endemic setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The present study evaluated the SD Bioline Malaria Ag 05FK40 (SDFK40), a three-band RDT detecting <it>Plasmodium falciparum</it>-specific parasite lactate dehydrogenase (Pf-pLDH) and pan <it>Plasmodium</it>-specific pLDH (pan-pLDH), in a reference setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The SDFK40 was retrospectively and prospectively tested against a panel of stored (n = 341) and fresh (n = 181) whole blood samples obtained in international travelers suspected of malaria, representing the four <it>Plasmodium </it>species as well as <it>Plasmodium </it>negative samples, and compared to microscopy and PCR results. The prospective panel was run together with OptiMAL (Pf-pLDH/pan-pLDH) and SDFK60 (histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP-2)/pan-pLDH).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall sensitivities for <it>P. falciparum </it>tested retrospectively and prospectively were 67.9% and 78.8%, reaching 100% and 94.6% at parasite densities >1,000/μl. Sensitivity at parasite densities ≤ 100/μl was 9.1%. Overall sensitivities for <it>Plasmodium vivax </it>and <it>Plasmodium ovale </it>were 86.7% and 80.0% (retrospectively) and 92.9% and 76.9% (prospectively), reaching 94.7% for both species (retrospective panel) at parasite densities >500/μl. Sensitivity for <it>Plasmodium malariae </it>was 21.4%. Species mismatch occurred in 0.7% of samples (3/411) and was limited to non-<it>falciparum </it>species erroneously identified as <it>P. falciparum</it>. None of the <it>Plasmodium </it>negative samples in the retrospective panel reacted positive. Compared to OptiMAL and SDFK60, SDFK40 showed lower sensitivities for <it>P. falciparum</it>, but better detection of <it>P. ovale</it>. Inter-observer agreement and test reproducibility were excellent, but lot-to-lot variability was observed for pan-pLDH results in case of <it>P. falciparum</it>.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>SDFK40 performance was poor at low (≤ 100/μl) parasite densities, precluding its use as the only diagnostic tool for malaria diagnosis. SDFK40 performed excellent for <it>P. falciparum </it>samples at high (>1,000/μl) parasite densities as well as for detection of <it>P. vivax </it>and <it>P. ovale </it>at parasite densities >500/μl.</p

Field trial of three different Plasmodium vivax-detecting rapid diagnostic tests with and without evaporative cool box storage in Afghanistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Accurate parasitological diagnosis of malaria is essential for targeting treatment where more than one species coexist. In this study, three rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) (AccessBio CareStart (CSPfPan), CareStart PfPv (CSPfPv) and Standard Diagnostics Bioline (SDBPfPv)) were evaluated for their ability to detect natural <it>Plasmodium vivax </it>infections in a basic clinic setting. The potential for locally made evaporative cooling boxes (ECB) to protect the tests from heat damage in high summer temperatures was also investigated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Venous blood was drawn from <it>P. vivax </it>positive patients in Jalalabad, Afghanistan and tested against a panel of six RDTs. The panel comprised two of each test type; one group was stored at room temperature and the other in an ECB. RDT results were evaluated against a consensus gold standard based on two double-read reference slides and PCR. The sensitivity, specificity and a measure of global performance for each test were determined and stratified by parasitaemia level and storage condition.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In total, 306 patients were recruited, of which 284 were positive for <it>P. vivax</it>, one for <it>Plasmodium malariae </it>and none for <it>Plasmodium falciparum</it>; 21 were negative. All three RDTs were specific for malaria. The sensitivity and global performance index for each test were as follows: CSPfPan [98.6%, 95.1%], CSPfPv [91.9%, 90.5%] and SDBPfPv [96.5%, 82.9%], respectively. CSPfPv was 16% less sensitive to a parasitaemia below 5,000/μL. Room temperature storage of SDBPfPv led to a high proportion of invalid results (17%), which reduced to 10% in the ECB. Throughout the testing period, the ECB maintained ~8°C reduction over ambient temperatures and never exceeded 30°C.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Of the three RDTs, the CSPfPan test was the most consistent and reliable, rendering it appropriate for this <it>P. vivax </it>predominant region. The CSPfPv test proved unsuitable owing to its reduced sensitivity at a parasitaemia below 5,000/μL (affecting 43% of study samples). Although the SDBPfPv device was more sensitive than the CSPfPv test, its invalid rate was unacceptably high. ECB storage reduced the proportion of invalid results for the SDBPfPv test, but surprisingly had no impact on RDT sensitivity at low parasitaemia.</p

External quality assessment on the use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in a non-endemic setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are increasingly used as a tool for the diagnosis of malaria, both in endemic and in non-endemic settings. The present study reports the results of an external quality assessment (EQA) session on RDTs in a non-endemic setting.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After validation of antigen stability during shipment at room temperature, three clinical samples and a questionnaire were sent to clinical laboratories in Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg using malaria RDTs. Participants were asked to report the results of the RDTs as observations (visibility of the RDT control and test lines) and interpretations (report as formulated to the clinician). In addition, participants were invited to fill in a questionnaire on the place of RDTs in the diagnostic strategy of malaria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 128/133 (96.2%) of clinical laboratories using RDTs participated. Six three-band and one four-band RDT brands were used. Analytical errors were rare and included (i) not recognizing invalid RDT results (1.6%) and (ii) missing the diagnosis of <it>Plasmodium falciparum </it>(0.8%). Minor errors were related to RDT test result interpretation and included (i) reporting "RDT positive" without species identification in the case of <it>P. falciparum </it>and non-<it>falciparum </it>species (16.9% and 6.5% respectively) and (ii) adding incorrect comments to the report (3.2%). Some of these errors were related to incorrect RDT package insert instructions such as (i) not reporting the possibility of mixed species infection in the case of <it>P. falciparum </it>and <it>Plasmodium vivax </it>(35.5% and 18.5% respectively) and (ii) the interpretation of <it>P. vivax </it>instead of non-falciparum species at the presence of a pan-species antigen line (4.0%). According to the questionnaire, 48.8% of participants processed ≤20 requests for malaria diagnosis in 2009. During opening hours, 93.6% of 125 participants used RDTs as an adjunct to microscopy but outside opening hours, nearly one third of 113 participants relied on RDTs as the primary (4.4%) or the single tool (25.7%) for malaria diagnosis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this non-endemic setting, errors in RDT performance were mainly related to RDT test line interpretations, partly due to incorrect package insert instructions. The reliance on RDTs as the primary or the single tool for the diagnosis of malaria outside opening hours is of concern and should be avoided.</p

Giemsa-stained thick blood films as a source of DNA for Plasmodium species-specific real-time PCR

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study describes the use of thick blood films (TBF) as specimens for DNA amplification with the <it>Plasmodium </it>species-specific real-time PCR that was recently validated on whole blood samples.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The panel of 135 Giemsa-stained clinical TBFs represented single infections of the four <it>Plasmodium </it>species with varying parasite densities or only gametocytes, mixed infections, and negative samples and was stored for up to 12 years. Half of the Giemsa-stained TBF was scraped off by a sterile scalpel and collected into phosphate buffered saline. DNA was extracted with the Qiagen DNA mini kit with minor modifications. DNA was amplified with the 18S rRNA real-time PCR targeting the four <it>Plasmodium </it>species with four species-specific primers and probes in combination with one genus-specific reverse primer. Results of the PCR on TBF were compared to those of the PCR on whole blood and to microscopy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Correct identification for single species infections was obtained for all TBF samples with <it>Plasmodium falciparum </it>(n = 50), <it>Plasmodium vivax </it>(n = 25), <it>Plasmodium ovale </it>(n = 25) and in all but one samples with <it>Plasmodium malariae </it>(n = 10). Compared to whole blood samples, higher Ct-values were observed by PCR on TBF with a mean difference of 5.93. Four out of five mixed infections were correctly identified with PCR on TBF. None of the negative samples (n = 20) gave a PCR signal. PCR on TBF showed a detection limit of 0.2 asexual parasites/μl compared to 0.02/μl for whole blood. Intra-run variation was higher for PCR on TBF (%CV 1.90) compared to PCR on whole blood (%CV 0.54). Compared to microscopy, PCR on TBF generated three more species identifications in samples containing a single species and detected the same four mixed-infections.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Giemsa-stained TBFs are a reliable source of DNA for <it>Plasmodium </it>real-time PCR analysis, allowing applications in reference and research settings in case whole blood samples are not available.</p

Diagnosis of Bacterial Bloodstream Infections: A 16S Metagenomics Approach

YesBackground. Bacterial bloodstream infection (bBSI) is one of the leading causes of death in critically ill patients and accurate diagnosis is therefore crucial. We here report a 16S metagenomics approach for diagnosing and understanding bBSI. Methodology/Principal Findings. The proof-of-concept was delivered in 75 children (median age 15 months) with severe febrile illness in Burkina Faso. Standard blood culture and malaria testing were conducted at the time of hospital admission. 16S metagenomics testing was done retrospectively and in duplicate on the blood of all patients. Total DNA was extracted from the blood and the V3–V4 regions of the bacterial 16S rRNA genes were amplified by PCR and deep sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. Paired reads were curated, taxonomically labeled, and filtered. Blood culture diagnosed bBSI in 12 patients, but this number increased to 22 patients when combining blood culture and 16S metagenomics results. In addition to superior sensitivity compared to standard blood culture, 16S metagenomics revealed important novel insights into the nature of bBSI. Patients with acute malaria or recovering from malaria had a 7-fold higher risk of presenting polymicrobial bloodstream infections compared to patients with no recent malaria diagnosis (p-value = 0.046). Malaria is known to affect epithelial gut function and may thus facilitate bacterial translocation from the intestinal lumen to the blood. Importantly, patients with such polymicrobial blood infections showed a 9-fold higher risk factor for not surviving their febrile illness (p-value = 0.030). Conclusions/Significance. Our data demonstrate that 16S metagenomics is a powerful approach for the diagnosis and understanding of bBSI. This proof-of-concept study also showed that appropriate control samples are crucial to detect background signals due to environmental contamination.This work was supported by the Flemish Ministry of Sciences (EWI, SOFI project IDIS).This paper has been subject to a correction. Please see Correction file above