Comparison of prevalence estimates of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 deletions in Plasmodium falciparum determined by conventional PCR and multiplex qPCR and implications for surveillance and monitoring.

OBJECTIVES: Accuracy of malaria rapid diagnostic tests is threatened by Plasmodium falciparum with pfhrp2/3 deletions. This study compares gene deletion prevalence determined by multiplex qPCR and conventional PCR (cPCR) using existing samples with clonality previously determined by microsatellite genotyping. METHODS: Multiplex qPCR was used to estimate prevalence of pfhrp2/3 deletions in three sets of previously collected patient samples from Eritrea and Peru. The qPCR was validated by multiplex digital PCR. Sample classification was compared with cPCR, and ROC analysis used to determine the optimal ΔCq threshold that aligned results of the two assays. RESULTS: qPCR classified 75% (637/849) of samples as single, and 212 as mixed-pfhrp2/3 genotypes, with a positive association between clonality and proportion of mixed-pfhrp2/3 genotype samples. Sample classification agreement between cPCR and qPCR was 75.1% (95% CI 68.6-80.7%) and 47.8% (95% CI 38.9-56.9%) for monoclonal and polyclonal infections. qPCR prevalence estimates of pfhrp2/3 deletions showed almost perfect (κ=0.804; 95% CI 0.714-0.895) and substantial agreement (κ=0.717; 95% CI 0.562-0.872) with cPCR for Peru and 2016 Eritrean samples, respectively. For 2019 Eritrean samples the prevalence of double pfhrp2/3 deletions was approximately two-fold higher using qPCR. The optimal threshold for matching assay results was ΔCq=3. CONCLUSION: Multiplex qPCR and cPCR produce comparable estimates of gene deletion prevalence when monoclonal infections dominate, but qPCR provides higher estimates where multiclonal infections are common.

Plasmodium falciparum pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions among patients enrolled at 100 health facilities throughout Tanzania: February to July 2021.

Plasmodium falciparum with the histidine rich protein 2 gene (pfhrp2) deleted from its genome can escape diagnosis by HRP2-based rapid diagnostic tests (HRP2-RDTs). The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends switching to a non-HRP2 RDT for P. falciparum clinical case diagnosis when pfhrp2 deletion prevalence causes ≥ 5% of RDTs to return false negative results. Tanzania is a country of heterogenous P. falciparum transmission, with some regions approaching elimination and others at varying levels of control. In concordance with the current recommended WHO pfhrp2 deletion surveillance strategy, 100 health facilities encompassing 10 regions of Tanzania enrolled malaria-suspected patients between February and July 2021. Of 7863 persons of all ages enrolled and providing RDT result and blood sample, 3777 (48.0%) were positive by the national RDT testing for Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) and/or HRP2. A second RDT testing specifically for the P. falciparum LDH (Pf-pLDH) antigen found 95 persons (2.5% of all RDT positives) were positive, though negative by the national RDT for HRP2, and were selected for pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 (pfhrp2/3) genotyping. Multiplex antigen detection by laboratory bead assay found 135/7847 (1.7%) of all blood samples positive for Plasmodium antigens but very low or no HRP2, and these were selected for genotyping as well. Of the samples selected for genotyping based on RDT or laboratory multiplex result, 158 were P. falciparum DNA positive, and 140 had sufficient DNA to be genotyped for pfhrp2/3. Most of these (125/140) were found to be pfhrp2+/pfhrp3+, with smaller numbers deleted for only pfhrp2 (n = 9) or only pfhrp3 (n = 6). No dual pfhrp2/3 deleted parasites were observed. This survey found that parasites with these gene deletions are rare in Tanzania, and estimated that 0.24% (95% confidence interval: 0.08% to 0.39%) of false-negative HRP2-RDTs for symptomatic persons were due to pfhrp2 deletions in this 2021 Tanzania survey. These data provide evidence for HRP2-based diagnostics as currently accurate for P. falciparum diagnosis in Tanzania.

Limited threat of Plasmodium falciparum pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletion to the utility of HRP2-based malaria RDTs in Northern Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that detect Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein-2 (PfHRP2) are exclusively deployed in Uganda, but deletion of the pfhrp2/3 target gene threatens their usefulness as malaria diagnosis and surveillance tools. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at 40 sites across four regions of Uganda in Acholi, Lango, W. Nile and Karamoja from March 2021 to June 2023. Symptomatic malaria suspected patients were recruited and screened with both HRP2 and pan lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) detecting RDTs. Dried blood spots (DBS) were collected from all patients and a random subset were used for genomic analysis to confirm parasite species and pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene status. Plasmodium species was determined using a conventional multiplex PCR while pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions were determined using a real-time multiplex qPCR. Expression of the HRP2 protein antigen in a subset of samples was further assessed using a ELISA. RESULTS: Out of 2435 symptomatic patients tested for malaria, 1504 (61.8%) were positive on pLDH RDT. Overall, qPCR confirmed single pfhrp2 gene deletion in 1 out of 416 (0.2%) randomly selected samples that were confirmed of P. falciparum mono-infections. CONCLUSION: These findings show limited threat of pfhrp2/3 gene deletions in the survey areas suggesting that HRP2 RDTs are still useful diagnostic tools for surveillance and diagnosis of P. falciparum malaria infections in symptomatic patients in this setting. Periodic genomic surveillance is warranted to monitor the frequency and trend of gene deletions and its effect on RDTs.

Global risk of selection and spread of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 and 3 gene deletions.

In the thirteen years since the first report of pfhrp2-deleted parasites in 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) has found that 40 of 47 countries surveyed worldwide have reported pfhrp2/3 gene deletions. Due to a high prevalence of pfhrp2/3 deletions causing false-negative HRP2 RDTs, in the last five years, Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia have switched or started switching to using alternative RDTs, that target pan-specific-pLDH or P. falciparum specific-pLDH alone of in combination with HRP2. However, manufacturing of alternative RDTs has not been brought to scale and there are no WHO prequalified combination tests that use Pf-pLDH instead of HRP2 for P. falciparum detection. For these reasons, the continued spread of pfhrp2/3 deletions represents a growing public health crisis that threatens efforts to control and eliminate P. falciparum malaria. National malaria control programmes, their implementing partners and test developers desperately seek pfhrp2/3 deletion data that can inform their immediate and future resource allocation. In response, we use a mathematical modelling approach to evaluate the global risk posed by pfhrp2/3 deletions and explore scenarios for how deletions will continue to spread in Africa. We incorporate current best estimates of the prevalence of pfhrp2/3 deletions and conduct a literature review to estimate model parameters known to impact the selection of pfhrp2/3 deletions for each malaria endemic country. We identify 20 countries worldwide to prioritise for surveillance and future deployment of alternative RDT, based on quickly selecting for pfhrp2/3 deletions once established. In scenarios designed to explore the continued spread of deletions in Africa, we identify 10 high threat countries that are most at risk of deletions both spreading to and subsequently being rapidly selected for. If HRP2-based RDTs continue to be relied on for malaria case management, we predict that the major route for pfhrp2 deletions to spread is south out from the current hotspot in the Horn of Africa, moving through East Africa over the next 20 years. We explore the variation in modelled timelines through an extensive parameter sensitivity analysis and despite wide uncertainties, we identify three countries that have not yet switched RDTs (Senegal, Zambia and Kenya) that are robustly identified as high risk for pfhrp2/3 deletions. These results provide a refined and updated prediction model for the emergence of pfhrp2/3 deletions in an effort to help guide pfhrp2/3 policy and prioritise future surveillance efforts and innovation.

Plasmodium falciparum resistant to artemisinin and diagnostics have emerged in Ethiopia.

Diagnosis and treatment of Plasmodium falciparum infections are required for effective malaria control and are pre-requisites for malaria elimination efforts; hence we need to monitor emergence, evolution and spread of drug- and diagnostics-resistant parasites. We deep sequenced key drug-resistance mutations and 1,832 SNPs in the parasite genomes of 609 malaria cases collected during a diagnostic-resistance surveillance study in Ethiopia. We found that 8.0% (95% CI 7.0-9.0) of malaria cases were caused by P. falciparum carrying the candidate artemisinin partial-resistance kelch13 (K13) 622I mutation, which was less common in diagnostic-resistant parasites mediated by histidine-rich proteins 2 and 3 (pfhrp2/3) deletions than in wild-type parasites (P = 0.03). Identity-by-descent analyses showed that K13 622I parasites were significantly more related to each other than to wild type (P < 0.001), consistent with recent expansion and spread of this mutation. Pfhrp2/3-deleted parasites were also highly related, with evidence of clonal transmissions at the district level. Of concern, 8.2% of K13 622I parasites also carried the pfhrp2/3 deletions. Close monitoring of the spread of combined drug- and diagnostic-resistant parasites is needed.

Genetic variants causing G6PD deficiency: Clinical and biochemical data support new WHO classification.

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency in erythrocytes causes acute haemolytic anaemia upon exposure to fava beans, drugs, or infection; and it predisposes to neonatal jaundice. The polymorphism of the X-linked G6PD gene has been studied extensively: allele frequencies of up to 25% of different G6PD deficient variants are known in many populations; variants that cause chronic non-spherocytic haemolytic anaemia (CNSHA) are instead all rare. WHO recommends G6PD testing to guide 8-aminoquinolines administration to prevent relapse of Plasmodium vivax infection. From a literature review focused on polymorphic G6PD variants we have retrieved G6PD activity values of 2291 males, and for the mean residual red cell G6PD activity of 16 common variants we have obtained reliable estimates, that range from 1.9% to 33%. There is variation in different datasets: for most variants most G6PD deficient males have a G6PD activity below 30% of normal. There is a direct relationship between residual G6PD activity and substrate affinity (Km G6P ), suggesting a mechanism whereby polymorphic G6PD deficient variants do not entail CNSHA. Extensive overlap in G6PD activity values of individuals with different variants, and no clustering of mean values above or below 10% support the merger of class II and class III variants.

Comprehensive, Comparative Evaluation of 35 Manual SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays.

The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in hundreds of in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) coming to market, facilitated by regulatory authorities allowing "emergency use" without a comprehensive evaluation of performance. The World Health Organization (WHO) released target product profiles (TPPs) specifying acceptable performance characteristics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay devices. We evaluated 26 rapid diagnostic tests and 9 enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-SARS-CoV-2, suitable for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), against these TPPs and other performance characteristics. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 60.1 to 100% and 56.0 to 100%, respectively. Five of 35 test kits reported no false reactivity for 55 samples with potentially cross-reacting substances. Six test kits reported no false reactivity for 35 samples containing interfering substances, and only one test reported no false reactivity with samples positive for other coronaviruses (not SARS-CoV-2). This study demonstrates that a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of test kits against defined specifications is essential for the selection of test kits, especially in a pandemic setting. IMPORTANCE The markets have been flooded with hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, and although there are many published reports on their performance, comparative reports are far fewer and tend to be limited to only a few tests. In this report, we comparatively assessed 35 rapid diagnostic tests or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) using a large set of samples from individuals with a history of mild to moderate COVID-19, commensurate with the target population for serosurveillance, which included serum samples from individuals previously infected, at undetermined time periods, with other seasonal human coronaviruses, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and SARS-CoV-1. The significant heterogeneity in their performances, with only a few tests meeting WHO target product profile performance requirements, highlights the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.

Comprehensive framework for integrated action on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of anemia: An introduction.

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced in 2021 a commitment to develop a comprehensive framework for integrated action on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of anemia and to establish an Anaemia Action Alliance to support the implementation of the framework. WHO commissioned four background papers to provide reflections about the most pressing issues to be addressed for accelerating reductions in the prevalence of anemia. Here, we provide a complete vision of the framework.

Evaluation of InTray Cassettes Directly from Blood Cultures for the Diagnosis of Sepsis in Clinical Bacteriology Laboratories as an Alternative to Classic Culture Media.

Culture media is fundamental in clinical bacteriology for the detection and isolation of bacterial pathogens. However, in-house media preparation could be challenging in low-resource settings. InTray® cassettes (Biomed Diagnostics) could be a valid alternative as they are compact, ready-to-use media preparations. In this study, we evaluate the use of two InTray media as a subculture alternative for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections: the InTray® Müller-Hinton (MH) chocolate and the InTray® Colorex™ Screen. The InTray MH chocolate was evaluated in 2 steps: firstly, using simulated positive blood cultures (reference evaluation study), and secondly, using positive blood cultures from a routine clinical laboratory (clinical evaluation study). The Colorex Screen was tested using simulated poly-microbial blood cultures. The sensitivity and specificity of the InTray MH chocolate were respectively 99.2% and 90% in the reference evaluation study and 97.1% and 88.2% in the clinical evaluation study. The time to detection (TTD) was ≤20 h in most positive blood cultures (99.8% and 97% in the two studies, respectively). The InTray® MH Chocolate agar showed good performance when used directly from clinical blood cultures for single bacterial infections. However, mixed flora is more challenging to interpret on this media than on Colorex™ Screen, even for an experienced microbiologist.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Plasmodium falciparum pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 Gene Deletions and Relatedness to Other Global Isolates, Djibouti, 2019-2020.

Deletions of pfhrp2 and paralogue pfhrp3 (pfhrp2/3) genes threaten Plasmodium falciparum diagnosis by rapid diagnostic test. We examined 1,002 samples from suspected malaria patients in Djibouti City, Djibouti, to investigate pfhrp2/3 deletions. We performed assays for Plasmodium antigen carriage, pfhrp2/3 genotyping, and sequencing for 7 neutral microsatellites to assess relatedness. By PCR assay, 311 (31.0%) samples tested positive for P. falciparum infection, and 296 (95.2%) were successfully genotyped; 37 (12.5%) samples were pfhrp2+/pfhrp3+, 51 (17.2%) were pfhrp2+/pfhrp3-, 5 (1.7%) were pfhrp2-/pfhrp3+, and 203 (68.6%) were pfhrp2-/pfhrp3-. Histidine-rich protein 2/3 antigen concentrations were reduced with corresponding gene deletions. Djibouti P. falciparum is closely related to Ethiopia and Eritrea parasites (pairwise GST 0.68 [Ethiopia] and 0.77 [Eritrea]). P. falciparum with deletions in pfhrp2/3 genes were highly prevalent in Djibouti City in 2019-2020; they appear to have arisen de novo within the Horn of Africa and have not been imported.

Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Deploying Next Generation Sequencing and CRISPR-Cas Systems to Support Diagnostics and Surveillance Towards Malaria Control and Elimination in Africa.

Recent developments in molecular biology and genomics have revolutionized biology and medicine mainly in the developed world. The application of next generation sequencing (NGS) and CRISPR-Cas tools is now poised to support endemic countries in the detection, monitoring and control of endemic diseases and future epidemics, as well as with emerging and re-emerging pathogens. Most low and middle income countries (LMICs) with the highest burden of infectious diseases still largely lack the capacity to generate and perform bioinformatic analysis of genomic data. These countries have also not deployed tools based on CRISPR-Cas technologies. For LMICs including Tanzania, it is critical to focus not only on the process of generation and analysis of data generated using such tools, but also on the utilization of the findings for policy and decision making. Here we discuss the promise and challenges of NGS and CRISPR-Cas in the context of malaria as Africa moves towards malaria elimination. These innovative tools are urgently needed to strengthen the current diagnostic and surveillance systems. We discuss ongoing efforts to deploy these tools for malaria detection and molecular surveillance highlighting potential opportunities presented by these innovative technologies as well as challenges in adopting them. Their deployment will also offer an opportunity to broadly build in-country capacity in pathogen genomics and bioinformatics, and to effectively engage with multiple stakeholders as well as policy makers, overcoming current workforce and infrastructure challenges. Overall, these ongoing initiatives will build the malaria molecular surveillance capacity of African researchers and their institutions, and allow them to generate genomics data and perform bioinformatics analysis in-country in order to provide critical information that will be used for real-time policy and decision-making to support malaria elimination on the continent.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Screening strategies and laboratory assays to support Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein deletion surveillance: where we are and what is needed.

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) have been an important tool for malaria diagnosis, especially in resource-limited settings lacking quality microscopy. Plasmodium falciparum parasites with deletion of the pfhrp2 gene encoding this antigen have now been identified in dozens of countries across Asia, Africa, and South America, with new reports revealing a high prevalence of deletions in some selected regions. To determine whether HRP2-based RDTs are appropriate for continued use in a locality, focused surveys and/or surveillance activities of the endemic P. falciparum population are needed. Various survey and laboratory methods have been used to determine parasite HRP2 phenotype and pfhrp2 genotype, and the data collected by these different methods need to be interpreted in the appropriate context of survey and assay utilized. Expression of the HRP2 antigen can be evaluated using point-of-care RDTs or laboratory-based immunoassays, but confirmation of a deletion (or mutation) of pfhrp2 requires more intensive laboratory molecular assays, and new tools and strategies for rigorous but practical data collection are particularly needed for large surveys. Because malaria diagnostic strategies are typically developed at the national level, nationally representative surveys and/or surveillance that encompass broad geographical areas and large populations may be required. Here is discussed contemporary assays for the phenotypic and genotypic evaluation of P. falciparum HRP2 status, consider their strengths and weaknesses, and highlight key concepts relevant to timely and resource-conscious workflows required for efficient diagnostic policy decision making.

Performance Evaluation of the STANDARDTM Q COVID-19 and PanbioTM COVID-19 Antigen Tests in Detecting SARS-CoV-2 during High Transmission Period in Mozambique.

(1) Background: Laboratory-based molecular assays are the gold standard to detect SARS-CoV-2. In resource-limited settings, the implementation of these assays has been hampered by operational challenges and long turnaround times. Rapid antigen detection tests are an attractive alternative. Our aim is to evaluate the clinical performance of two SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests during a high transmission period. (2) Methods: A total of 1277 patients seeking SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis were enrolled at four health facilities. Nasopharyngeal swabs for rapid antigen and real time PCR testing were collected for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, misclassification rate, and agreement were determined. (3) Results: The overall sensitivity of Panbio COVID-19 was 41.3% (95% CI: 34.6-48.4%) and the specificity was 98.2% (95% CI: 96.2-99.3%). The Standard Q had an overall sensitivity and specificity of 45.0% (95% CI: 39.9-50.2%) and 97.6% (95% CI: 95.3-99.0%), respectively. The positive predictive value of a positive test was 93.3% and 95.4% for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. A higher sensitivity of 43.2% and 49.4% was observed in symptomatic cases for the Panbio and Standard Q Ag-RDTs, respectively. (4) Conclusions: Despite the overall low sensitivity, the two evaluated rapid tests are useful to improve the diagnosis of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections during high transmission periods.

Modelling the epidemiology of malaria and spread of HRP2-negative Plasmodium falciparum following the replacement of HRP2-detecting rapid diagnostic tests.

Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are dominated by products which use histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) to detect Plasmodium falciparum. The emergence of parasites lacking the pfhrp2 gene can lead to high rates of false-negative results amongst these RDTs. One solution to restore the ability to correctly diagnose falciparum malaria is to switch to an RDT which is not solely reliant on HRP2. This study used an agent-based stochastic simulation model to investigate the impact on prevalence and transmission caused by switching the type of RDT used once false-negative rates reached pre-defined thresholds within the treatment-seeking symptomatic population. The results show that low transmission settings were the first to reach the false-negative switch threshold, and that lower thresholds were typically associated with better long-term outcomes. Changing the diagnostic RDT away from a HRP2-only RDT is predicted to restore the ability to correctly diagnose symptomatic malaria infections, but often did not lead to the extinction of HRP2-negative parasites from the population which continued to circulate in low density infections, or return to the parasite prevalence and transmission levels seen prior to the introduction of the HRP2-negative parasite. In contrast, failure to move away from HRP2-only RDTs leads to near fixation of these parasites in the population, and the inability to correctly diagnose symptomatic cases. Overall, these results suggest pfhrp2-deleted parasites are likely to become a significant component of P. falciparum parasite populations, and that long-term strategies are needed for diagnosis and surveillance which do not rely solely on HRP2.

Epidemiology of mutant Plasmodium falciparum parasites lacking histidine-rich protein 2/3 genes in Eritrea 2 years after switching from HRP2-based RDTs.

Eritrea was the first African country to complete a nationwide switch in 2016 away from HRP2-based RDTs due to high rates of false-negative RDT results caused by Plasmodium falciparum parasites lacking hrp2/hrp3 genes. A cross-sectional survey was conducted during 2019 enrolling symptomatic malaria patients from nine health facilities across three zones consecutively to investigate the epidemiology of P. falciparum lacking hrp2/3 after the RDT switch. Molecular analyses of 715 samples revealed the overall prevalence of hrp2-, hrp3-, and dual hrp2/3-deleted parasites as 9.4% (95%CI 7.4-11.7%), 41.7% (95% CI 38.1-45.3%) and 7.6% (95% CI 5.8-9.7%), respectively. The prevalence of hrp2- and hrp3-deletion is heterogeneous within and between zones: highest in Anseba (27.1% and 57.9%), followed by Gash Barka (6.4% and 37.9%) and Debub zone (5.2% and 43.8%). hrp2/3-deleted parasites have multiple diverse haplotypes, with many shared or connected among parasites of different hrp2/3 status, indicating mutant parasites have likely evolved from multiple and local parasite genetic backgrounds. The findings show although prevalence of hrp2/3-deleted parasites is lower 2 years after RDT switching, HRP2-based RDTs remain unsuitable for malaria diagnosis in Eritrea. Continued surveillance of hrp2/3-deleted parasites in Eritrea and neighbouring countries is required to monitor the trend.

Plasmodium falciparum is evolving to escape malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Ethiopia.

In Africa, most rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for falciparum malaria recognize histidine-rich protein 2 antigen. Plasmodium falciparum parasites lacking histidine-rich protein 2 (pfhrp2) and 3 (pfhrp3) genes escape detection by these RDTs, but it is not known whether these deletions confer sufficient selective advantage to drive rapid population expansion. By studying blood samples from a cohort of 12,572 participants enroled in a prospective, cross-sectional survey along Ethiopia's borders with Eritrea, Sudan and South Sudan using RDTs, PCR, an ultrasensitive bead-based immunoassay for antigen detection and next-generation sequencing, we estimate that histidine-rich protein 2-based RDTs would miss 9.7% (95% confidence interval 8.5-11.1) of P. falciparum malaria cases owing to pfhrp2 deletion. We applied a molecular inversion probe-targeted deep sequencing approach to identify distinct subtelomeric deletion patterns and well-established pfhrp3 deletions and to uncover recent expansion of a singular pfhrp2 deletion in all regions sampled. We propose a model in which pfhrp3 deletions have arisen independently multiple times, followed by strong positive selection for pfhrp2 deletion owing to RDT-based test-and-treatment. Existing diagnostic strategies need to be urgently reconsidered in Ethiopia, and improved surveillance for pfhrp2 deletion is needed throughout the Horn of Africa.