Publication:
Comparison of three diagnostic methods (microscopy, RDT, and PCR) for the detection of malaria parasites in representative samples from Equatorial Guinea

dc.contributor.authorBerzosa, Pedro
dc.contributor.authorde Lucio, Aida
dc.contributor.authorRomay-Barja, Maria
dc.contributor.authorHerrador, Zaida
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Mora, Vicenta
dc.contributor.authorGarcia, Luz
dc.contributor.authorFernandez-Martinez, Amalia
dc.contributor.authorSantana-Morales, Maria
dc.contributor.authorNcogo, Policarpo
dc.contributor.authorValladares, Basilio
dc.contributor.authorRiloha, Matilde
dc.contributor.authorBenito, Agustin
dc.contributor.funderRETICS-Investigación colaborativa en Enfermedades Tropicales (RICET-ISCIII) (España)
dc.contributor.funderInstituto de Salud Carlos III
dc.contributor.funderAgencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-21T07:55:21Z
dc.date.available2019-05-21T07:55:21Z
dc.date.issued2018-09-17
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Malaria in Equatorial Guinea remains a major public health problem. The country is a holo-endemic area with a year-round transmission pattern. In 2016, the prevalence of malaria was 12.09% and malaria caused 15% of deaths among children under 5 years. In the Continental Region, 95.2% of malaria infections were Plasmodium falciparum, 9.5% Plasmodium vivax, and eight cases mixed infection in 2011. The main strategy for malaria control is quick and accurate diagnosis followed by effective treatment. Early and accurate diagnosis of malaria is essential for both effective disease management and malaria surveillance. The quality of malaria diagnosis is important in all settings, as misdiagnosis can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Microscopy and RDTs are the primary choices for diagnosing malaria in the field. However, false-negative results may delay treatment and increase the number of persons capable of infecting mosquitoes in the community. The present study analysed the performance of microscopy and RDTs, the two main techniques used in Equatorial Guinea for the diagnosis of malaria, compared to semi-nested multiplex PCR (SnM-PCR). RESULTS: A total of 1724 samples tested by microscopy, RDT, and SnM-PCR were analysed. Among the negative samples detected by microscopy, 335 (19.4%) were false negatives. On the other hand, the negative samples detected by RDT, 128 (13.3%) were false negatives based on PCR. This finding is important, especially since it is a group of patients who did not receive antimalarial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the high number of false negatives in microscopy, it is necessary to reinforce training in microscopy, the "Gold Standard" in endemic areas. A network of reference centres could potentially support ongoing diagnostic and control efforts made by malaria control programmes in the long term, as the National Centre of Tropical Medicine currently supports the National Programme against Malaria of Equatorial Guinea to perform all of the molecular studies necessary for disease control. Taking into account the results obtained with the RDTs, an exhaustive study of the deletion of the hrp2 gene must be done in EG to help choose the correct RDT for this area.es_ES
dc.description.peerreviewedes_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study (Project Reference PI14CIII/00064-TRPY 1282/15) was funded by the Institute of Health Carlos III, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) and the Network Biomedical Research on Tropical Diseases (RICET in Spanish): RD12/0018/0001.es_ES
dc.format.number1es_ES
dc.format.page333es_ES
dc.format.volume17es_ES
dc.identifier.citationMalar J. 2018 Sep 17;17(1):333.es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12936-018-2481-4es_ES
dc.identifier.e-issn1475-2875es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1475-2875es_ES
dc.identifier.journalMalaria journales_ES
dc.identifier.pubmedID30223852es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/7617
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherBioMed Central (BMC)
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/PI14CIII/00064es_ES
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/RD12/0018/0001es_ES
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/TRPY1282/15
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-018-2481-4es_ES
dc.repisalud.centroISCIII::Centro Nacional de Medicina Tropical (CNMT)es_ES
dc.repisalud.institucionISCIIIes_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.rights.licenseAtribución 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectDiagnosises_ES
dc.subjectMalariaes_ES
dc.subjectMicroscopyes_ES
dc.subjectRDTses_ES
dc.subjectSnM-PCRes_ES
dc.subject.meshAdolescentes_ES
dc.subject.meshAdultes_ES
dc.subject.meshAgedes_ES
dc.titleComparison of three diagnostic methods (microscopy, RDT, and PCR) for the detection of malaria parasites in representative samples from Equatorial Guineaes_ES
dc.typeresearch articlees_ES
dc.type.hasVersionVoRes_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationd1a82f32-e7e2-471c-a59d-5cd408ac7228
relation.isAuthorOfPublication9884d7ab-a306-46d5-bff5-118c869d748f
relation.isAuthorOfPublication2611f71f-675d-4029-a350-bc28929074ad
relation.isAuthorOfPublication387449bd-79eb-4405-a24d-81093eef63ed
relation.isAuthorOfPublication71d7a0f0-05a2-41ca-9a97-89ff5be07a45
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationa513d253-0498-4f5e-9b35-a97cf248dcfc
relation.isAuthorOfPublication508cfe63-3717-4aca-9f28-0623b849471b
relation.isAuthorOfPublication0486607e-59e8-448a-9655-41a1b3082d80
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd1a82f32-e7e2-471c-a59d-5cd408ac7228
relation.isFunderOfPublication838f52a6-4764-4f63-b87d-fc0e4b0033ee
relation.isFunderOfPublication7d739953-4b68-4675-b5bb-387a9ab74b66
relation.isFunderOfPublication519b9f25-b740-48a8-a53e-bcf4fc0565d9
relation.isFunderOfPublication.latestForDiscovery838f52a6-4764-4f63-b87d-fc0e4b0033ee
relation.isPublisherOfPublication4fe896aa-347b-437b-a45b-95f4b60d9fd3
relation.isPublisherOfPublication.latestForDiscovery4fe896aa-347b-437b-a45b-95f4b60d9fd3

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ComparisonOfThreeDiagnostic_2018.pdf
Size:
1.18 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: