Diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic test, light microscopy and polymerase chain reaction during mass survey conducted in low and high malaria-endemic areas from two North-Eastern states of India

• Published in: Parasitology research (1987) 2021-06, Vol.120 (6), p.2251-2261
• Main Authors: Shankar, Hari, Singh, Mrigendra Pal, Phookan, Sobhan, Singh, Kuldeep, Mishra, Neelima
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Asymptomatic; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Child; Diagnosis; Diagnostic tests; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; Humans; Immunology; India; Light microscopy; Malaria; Malaria - diagnosis; Male; Medical Microbiology; Medical tests; Microbiology; Microscope and microscopy; Microscopy; Parasites; Plasmodium falciparum; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Sensitivity and Specificity; Treatment and Prophylaxis - Original Paper; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0932-0113; 1432-1955
• DOI: 10.1007/s00436-021-07125-8

An early and accurate diagnosis followed by prompt treatment is pre-requisite for the management of any disease. Malaria diagnosis is routinely performed by microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in the field settings; however, their performance may vary across regions, age and asymptomatic status. Owing to this, we assessed the diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced molecular tools for malaria detection in low and high malaria-endemic settings. We performed mass blood surveys in low and high endemic regions of two North-Eastern districts from the states of Assam and Meghalaya. A total of 3322 individuals were screened for malaria using RDT, microscopy and PCR and measures of diagnostic accuracy were estimated. Out of 3322 individuals, 649 (19.5%) were detected with malaria parasite. Asymptomatic were 86.4% (2872/3322), of which 19.4% (557/2872) had Plasmodium infection. The sensitivity and specificity of microscopy were 42.7% and 99.3%, and RDT showed 49.9% and 90.4%, respectively, considering PCR as standard. RDT (AUC: 0.65 vs 0.74; p = 0.001) and microscopy (AUC: 0.64 vs 0.76; p < 0.0001) performances were significantly lower in low compared to high endemic areas. True positive rate was lower in asymptomatics but true negative rate was found similar to symptomatic individuals. The conventional diagnostic tools (RDT and microscopy) had detected malaria in children with nearly twofold greater sensitivity than in the adults ( p < 0.05). To conclude, asymptomatics, adults and low malaria-endemic regions require major attention due to mediocre performance of conventional diagnostic tools in malaria detection.