Search

Introduction: In non-endemic settings, expertise in malaria microscopy is limited and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are an adjunct to malaria diagnosis., Aim: We performed an External Quality Assessment (EQA) on reading and interpretation of malaria RDTs in a non-endemic setting., Methods: Participants were medical laboratories in Belgium and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg using malaria RDTs; they received (i) 10 high-resolution photographs presenting test line combinations of RDTs with interpretations listed in a multiple choice format and (ii) a questionnaire about their practices of malaria diagnosis., Results: Among 135 subscribing laboratories, 134 (99.3%) used 139 RDT products (11 different products from 8 brands). After exclusion of the results of one laboratory, analysis was done for 133 laboratories using 137 RDT products. Scores of 10/10, 9/10 and 8/10 were achieved for 58.4%, 13.1% and 8.0% of 137 RDT products respectively. For three-band P. falciparum-pan-Plasmodium RDTs (113 (82.5%) products, 6 brands), most frequent errors were (1) disregarding faint test lines (18.6%), (2) reporting invalid instead of P. falciparum (16.8%) and (3) reporting "Plasmodium spp., no further differentiation possible" without mentioning the presence or absence of P. falciparum (11.5%). For four-band RDTs (21 (15.3%) products, 1 brand), errors were (4) disregarding faint P. vivax test lines (47.6%) and (5) reporting "Plasmodium spp., no further differentiation possible" without mentioning the presence of P. falciparum and P. vivax (28.6%). Instructions for use (IFU) of only 4 out of 10 RDT products mentioned to interpret faint-intensity test lines as positive (conducive to errors 1 and 4) and IFU of 2 products displayed incorrect information (conducive to errors 2 and 5). Outside of office hours, 36.1% of participants relied on RDTs as the initial diagnostic test; 13.9% did not perform microscopic confirmation., Conclusion: Reading and interpretation of malaria RDTs was satisfactory, but errors were embedded in the instructions for use of the products. Relying on RDTs alone for malaria diagnosis (about one third of participants) is not a recommended practice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: In low resource settings, Salmonella serovars frequently cause bloodstream infections. This study investigated the diagnostic performance of immunochromatographic rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which detect Salmonella antigens, when applied to stored grown blood culture broth., Material/methods: The SD Bioline One Step Salmonella Typhi Ag Rapid Detection Kit (Standard Diagnostics, Republic of Korea), marketed for the detection of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (Salmonella Typhi) in stool and the Salmonella Ag Rapid Test (Creative Diagnostics, USA), marketed for the detection of all Salmonella serotypes in stool, were selected for evaluation based on a pre-test evaluation of six RDT products. The limits of detection (LOD) for culture suspensions were established and the selected RDT products were assessed on 19 freshly grown spiked blood culture broth samples and 413 stored clinical blood culture broth samples, collected in Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo., Results: The LOD of both products was established as 107-108 CFU/ml. When applied to clinical blood culture broth samples, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SD Bioline RDT were respectively 100% and 79.7% for the detection of Salmonella Typhi; 94.4% (65/69) of false-positive results were caused by Salmonella Enteritidis. When considering the combined detection of Salmonella Typhi and Enteritidis (both group D Salmonella), sensitivity and specificity were 97.9% and 98.5% respectively. For Creative Diagnostics, diagnostic sensitivity was 78.3% and specificity 91.0% for all Salmonella serotypes combined; 88.3% (53/60) of false negative results were caused by Salmonella Paratyphi A., Conclusions: When applied to grown blood culture broths, the SD Bioline RDT had a good sensitivity and specificity for the detection of Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Enteritidis. The Creative Diagnostics product had a moderate sensitivity and acceptable specificity for the detection of all Salmonella serovars combined and needs further optimization. A RDT that reliably detects Salmonella Paratyphi A is needed.

The present External Quality Assessment (EQA) assessed microscopy of blood parasites among diagnostic laboratories in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The EQA addressed 445 participants in 10/11 provinces (October 2013-April 2014). Participants were sent a panel of five slides and asked to return a routinely stained slide which was assessed for quality of preparation and staining. Response rate was 89.9% (400/445). For slide 1 (no parasites), 30.6% participants reported malaria, mostly Plasmodium falciparum. Only 11.0% participants reported slide 2 (Plasmodium malariae) correctly, 71.0% reported "malaria" or "Plasmodium falciparum" (considered acceptable). Slide 3 contained Plasmodium falciparum (109/μl) and Trypanosoma brucei brucei trypomastigotes: they were each reported by 32.5% and 16.5% participants respectively, 6.0% reported both. Slide 4 (Trypanosoma) was recognised by 44.9% participants. Slide 5 (Plasmodium ovale) was correctly reported by 6.2% participants, another 68.8% replied "malaria" or "Plasmodium falciparum" (considered acceptable). Only 13.6% of routine slides returned were correctly prepared and stained. The proportion of correct/acceptable scores for at least 4/5 slides was higher among EQA-experienced participants compared to first time participants (40.9% versus 22.4%, p = 0.001) and higher among those being trained < 2 years ago compared to those who were not (42.9% versus 26.3%, p = 0.01). Among diagnostic laboratories in Democratic Republic of the Congo, performance of blood parasite microscopy including non-falciparum species and Trypanosoma was poor. Recent training and previous EQA participation were associated with a better performance.