4.4 Article

PfHRP2 and PfLDH antigen detection for monitoring the efficacy of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) in the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria

Journal

MALARIA JOURNAL
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-8-211

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. IMEA foundation [AO0508]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: An assessment of the accuracy of two malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for the detection of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) or Pf lactate dehydrogenase (PfLDH) was undertaken in children aged between six and 59 months included in an anti-malarial efficacy study in Benin. Methods: In Allada (Benin), 205 children aged 6-59 months with falciparum malaria received either artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ), artemether-lumefantrine (AL), or sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP). Children included in the study were simultaneously followed by both RDT and high-quality microscopy for up to 42 days. Results: At the time of inclusion, PfHRP2-based tests were positive in 203 children (99%) and PfLDH-based tests were positive in 204 (99.5%). During follow-up, independent of the treatment received, only 17.3% (28/162) of children effectively cured were negative with the PfHRP2 RDT at day 3, with a gradual increase in specificity until day 42. The specificity of antigen detection with the PfLDH test was 87% (141/162) on day 3, and between 92% and 100% on days 7 to 42. A statistical difference was observed between the persistence of PfHRP2 and PfLDH antigenaemia during follow-up in children treated with artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) but not with SP. Conclusion: Although both RDTs are as sensitive as microscopy in detecting true malaria cases, the PfHRP2 RDT had very low specificity during follow-up until day 28. On the other hand, the PfLDH test could be used to detect failures and, therefore, to assess anti-malarial efficacy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available