Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jun 7:9:154.
doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-9-154.

Field evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test (Parascreen) for malaria diagnosis in the Peruvian Amazon

Jorge Bendezu  1 , Angel Rosas, Tanilu Grande, Hugo Rodriguez, Alejandro Llanos-Cuentas, Jorge Escobedo, Dionicia Gamboa
Affiliations

Field evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test (Parascreen) for malaria diagnosis in the Peruvian Amazon

Jorge Bendezu et al. Malar J. .

Abstract

Background: The rapid diagnostic tests for malaria (RDT) constitute a fast and opportune alternative for non-complicated malaria diagnosis in areas where microscopy is not available. The objective of this study was to validate a RDT named Parascreen under field conditions in Iquitos, department of Loreto, Peru. Parascreen is a RDT that detects the histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2) antigen from Plasmodium falciparum and lactate deshydrogenase from all Plasmodium species.

Methods: Parascreen was compared with microscopy performed by experts (EM) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the following indicators: sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive (PV+) and negative predictive values (PV-), positive (LR+) and negative likehood ratio (LR-).

Results: 332 patients with suspected non-complicated malaria who attended to the MOH health centres were enrolled between October and December 2006. For P. falciparum malaria, Parascreen in comparison with EM, had Se: 53.5%, Sp: 98.7%, PV+: 66.7%, PV-: 97.8%, LR+: 42.27 and LR-: 0.47; and for non-P. falciparum malaria, Se: 77.1%, Sp: 97.6%, PV+: 91.4%, PV-: 92.7%, LR+: 32.0 and LR-: 0.22. The comparison of Parascreen with PCR showed, for P. falciparum malaria, Se: 81.8%, Sp: 99.1%, PV+: 75%, PV-: 99.4, LR+: 87.27 and LR-: 0.18; and for non-P. falciparum malaria Se: 76.1%, Sp: 99.2%, PV+: 97.1%, PV-: 92.0%, LR+: 92.51 and LR-: 0.24.

Conclusions: The study results indicate that Parascreen is not a valid and acceptable test for malaria diagnosis under the field conditions found in the Peruvian Amazon. The relative proportion of Plasmodium species, in addition to the genetic characteristics of the parasites in the area, must be considered before applying any RDT, especially after the finding of P. falciparum malaria parasites lacking pfhrp2 gene in this region.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. World Health Organization. World Malaria Report. Geneva. 2009.
    1. Ministerio de Salud. Boletin Epidemiologico. Lima. 2008. p. 18.http://www.dge.gob.pe
    1. Arróspide N. Tratamiento Presuntivo de malaria por promotores de salud en comunidades periurbanas de Iquitos. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2005;22:241–242.
    1. Durand S, Cesar R, Maria H, Cabezas C. Oportunidad en el diagnostico y tratamiento de la Malaria en comunidades periurbanas de la Amazonia Peruana. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2005;22:47–53.
    1. Bell DR, Wilson DW, Martin LB. False-positive results of a Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2-detecting malaria rapid diagnostic test due to high sensitivity in a community with fluctuating low parasite density. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2005;73:199–203. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources