...
首页> 外文期刊>International journal of infectious diseases : >Comparative analysis of four malaria diagnostic tools and implications for malaria treatment in southwestern Nigeria
【24h】

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

机译:尼日利亚西南部疟疾诊断工具和疟疾治疗影响的比较分析

获取原文
           

摘要

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.
机译:目标疟疾控制和消除中遇到的问题之一是不准确的诊断,由不同疟疾诊断工具的敏感程度导致。尽管显微镜仍然是疟疾诊断的黄金标准,但在研究环境中使用更敏感和鲁棒的诊断工具,例如聚合酶链反应(PCR),以监测由于一些显微镜的一些缺点而导致的干预措施和跟踪亚微观感染。由于诊断是理性疟疾治疗的关键决定因素,因此必须确保精确的诊断,以确保有效的治疗计划。因此,该研究比较了两种经常使用的护理点疟疾诊断工具,具有两个分子工具,并讨论了对疟疾治疗的含义。本研究中的设计,使用四种方法进行采样和系统地测试436名,使用四种方法,即快速的诊断测试(以下称为疟疾RDT-MRDT),显微镜,巢式PCR(NPCR)和定量PCR(QPCR)。比较了测试敏感性和特异性,并确定了它们的一致性水平。 NPCR作为黄金标准的结果,对于MRDT,显微镜和QPCR,获得了42.2%,8.9%和57.8%的假阳性率。类似地,对于上述每种方法,获得了12.5%,62.5%和0.8%的假阴性率。在评估的所有工具中,QPCR具有最高的敏感性(99.2%)和中等特异性(42.2%),然后使用MRDT套件(87.5%)。结论通过嵌套/定量PCR检测基于MRDT的高误阳性率和本研究区域中的亚微观载体的大量比例,我们建议这些分子工具应在该地区的专业实验室(I)中轨道和治疗子微观载体,以防止他们对疟疾传播的贡献; (ii)提供使用高吞吐量测试工具提供可靠的流行病学数据,用于评估疟疾干预措施。

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