ABSTRACT
Laboratory benchmarking allows objective analysis of the analytical performance of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). We present the analytical detection limits of the Rapigen BIOCREDIT Malaria Ag Pf/Pv (pLDH/pLDH), the Rapigen BIOCREDIT Malaria Ag Pf (pLDH/HRPII), and two best-in-class WHO-prequalified comparator RDTs, generated using standardized panels containing recombinant antigen, in vitro cultured parasites, international standards, and clinical samples. Detection limit antigen concentrations of HRP2, PfLDH, and PvLDH were determined for the Rapigen and comparator RDTs. Detection of antigens in international units (IU)/mL was also evaluated. The Rapigen Ag Pf (pLDH/HRPII) detected 3.9 and 3.9 IU/mL for PfLDH and HRP2, respectively, and the Ag Pf/Pv (pLDH/pLDH) detected 3.9 and 5.0 IU/mL for PfLDH and PvLDH, respectively. The comparator HRP2/PfLDH and HRP2/PvLDH detected 15.6 and 31.3 IU/mL for HRP2 and PfLDH and 15.6 and 50.0 IU/mL for HRP2 and PvLDH, respectively. The RDT clinical sensitivity was predicted through application of analytical detection limits to antigen concentration distributions from clinical symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Febrile cases would be detected in a majority by both standard and Rapigen RDTs, but incremental increases in sensitivity in the Rapigen RDTs may be important for clinical cases currently missed by microscopy. Rapigen RDTs were predicted to have improved detection of asymptomatic cases and infections with parasites carrying hrp2 deletions through more sensitive PfLDH detection. Through the benchmarking and simulation of clinical sensitivity, a method for rapidly assessing the ability of new RDTs to meet clinical needs using high-sensitivity antigen distribution data is presented.
ABSTRACT
The relationship between N-antigen concentration and viral load within and across different specimens guides the clinical performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) in different uses. A prospective study was conducted in Porto Velho, Brazil, to investigate RDT performance in different specimen types as a function of the correlation between antigen concentration and viral load. The study included 214 close contacts with recent exposures to confirmed cases, aged 12 years and older and with various levels of vaccination. Antigen concentration was measured in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), anterior nares swab (ANS), and saliva specimens. Reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR was conducted on the NPS and saliva specimens, and two RDTs were conducted on ANS and one RDT on saliva. Antigen concentration correlated well with viral load when measured in the same specimen type but not across specimen types. Antigen levels were higher in symptomatic cases compared to asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic cases and lower in saliva compared to NPS and ANS samples. Discordant results between the RDTs conducted on ANS and the RT-PCR on NPS were resolved by antigen concentration values. The analytical limit-of-detection of RDTs can be used to predict the performance of the tests in populations for which the antigen concentration is known. The antigen dynamics across different sample types observed in SARS-CoV-2 disease progression support use of RDTs with nasal samples. Given lower antigen concentrations in saliva, rapid testing using saliva is expected to require improved RDT analytical sensitivity to achieve clinical sensitivity similar to rapid testing of nasal samples.