Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Field Evaluation of a Hemozoin-Based Malaria Diagnostic Device in Puerto Lempira, Honduras.
Fontecha, Gustavo; Escobar, Denis; Ortiz, Bryan; Pinto, Alejandra; Serrano, Delmy; Valdivia, Hugo O.
  • Fontecha G; Microbiology Research Institute, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa 11101, Honduras.
  • Escobar D; Microbiology Research Institute, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa 11101, Honduras.
  • Ortiz B; Microbiology Research Institute, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa 11101, Honduras.
  • Pinto A; Microbiology Research Institute, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa 11101, Honduras.
  • Serrano D; Hospital de Puerto Lempira, Secretaría de Salud de Honduras, Gracias a Dios 33101, Honduras.
  • Valdivia HO; Department of Parasitology, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit 6 (NAMRU-6), Lima 07006, Peru.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 12(5)2022 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875517
ABSTRACT
The diagnosis of malaria in Honduras is based mainly on microscopic observation of the parasite in thick smears or the detection of parasite antigens through rapid diagnostic tests when microscopy is not available. The specific treatment of the disease depends exclusively on the positive result of one of these tests. Given the low sensitivity of conventional methods, new diagnostic approaches are needed. This study evaluates the in-field performance of a device (Gazelle™) based on the detection of hemozoin. This was a double-blind study evaluating symptomatic individuals with suspected malaria in the department of Gracias a Dios, Honduras, using blood samples collected from 2021 to 2022. The diagnostic performance of Gazelle™ was compared with microscopy and nested 18ssr PCR as references. The sensitivity and specificity of Gazelle™ were 59.7% and 98.6%, respectively, while microscopy had a sensitivity of 64.9% and a specificity of 100%. The kappa index between microscopy and Gazelle™ was 0.9216 using microscopy as a reference. Both methods show similar effectiveness and predictive values. No statistical differences were observed between the results of the Gazelle™ compared to light microscopy (p = 0.6831). The turnaround time was shorter for Gazelle™ than for microscopy, but the cost per sample was slightly higher for Gazelle™. Gazelle™ showed more false-negative cases when infections were caused by Plasmodium falciparum compared to P. vivax.

Conclusions:

The sensitivity and specificity of Gazelle™ are comparable to microscopy. The simplicity and ease of use of the Gazelle™, the ability to run on batteries, and the immediacy of its results make it a valuable tool for malaria detection in the field. However, further development is required to differentiate Plasmodium species, especially in those regions requiring differentiated treatment.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Country/Region as subject: Central America / Honduras Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Diagnostics12051206

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials Country/Region as subject: Central America / Honduras Language: English Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Diagnostics12051206