The aim of this study is to perform a performance evaluation of novel diagnostic tools for detecting malaria in malaria-endemic countries. At the beginning of 2022, FIND launched a call for innovation with the distinct aim to identify malaria innovations that have the potential to address the technical and operational limitations of current malaria RDTs, particularly in view of the emergence of P. falciparum parasites with hrp2/3 deletions, the need for improved tools to identify all Plasmodium species and/or the need for improved surveillance. This study will generate valuable data on the performance of these novel non-HRP2-based tests and inform FIND and developers on technical and operational assay optimization requirements for accelerated access of these tools to market.
This study aims to support product development efforts towards novel malaria diagnostics not HRP2-based by providing early-stage technology developers with valuable information on performance and basic feasibility data that can help to accelerate development. The WHO now recommends that where pfhrp2/3 gene deletions are reported (within countries or in neighboring countries), representative baseline surveys are to be conducted among suspected cases. If \>5% of false negative RDT results are attributed to these deletions, a change in RDT is necessary. Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH), appears as a good alternative to HRP2 as it is an essential protein expressed by all human-infecting Plasmodium species. However, pLDH-based RDTs have shown to perform poorly at low parasitaemia, which is common among patients infected with P. vivax, P. malariae and P. ovale species as well as in asymptomatic infections. Thus, RDTs not based on HRP2 are limited; moreover, WHO prequalified ones that can detect and distinguish between Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax are non-existent. The current malaria diagnostic landscape demands more innovation supporting and accelerating the development of new malaria diagnostic tools that that tackle these emerging issues.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
509
Stansile
Kigali, Rwanda
Performance of nPOC
Point estimates of clinical performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and DOR) with 95% confidence intervals of nPOC using nPCR as reference for detecting malaria in patients with symptoms suggestive of malaria.
Time frame: 3 months
Performance of LM
Point estimates of clinical performance characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and DOR) of light microscopy using nPCR as reference for detecting malaria in patients with symptoms suggestive of malaria
Time frame: 3 months
Performance of comparator RDT
Point estimates of clinical performance characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and DOR) of the comparator tests using nPCR as reference for detecting malaria in patients with symptoms suggestive of malaria
Time frame: 3 months
Comparison between nPOC [Truenat® Malaria Pv/Pf; Truenat® Malaria Pv/Pf Hi-Sens; Humasis Hs-Malaria P.f/Pan test, Hemozoin Imager] and LM
Comparison between the clinical performance of nPOC and light microscopy
Time frame: 3 months
Comparison between Hemozoin Imager and comparator RDT
Comparison between the clinical performance of between the clinical performance of Hemozoin Imager and comparator rapid diagnostic test \[SD Bioline Combo/ First Response\]. The percentage difference between the clinical performance characteristics of nPOC and comparator RDT with 95% confidence intervals using Tango's score method.
Time frame: 3 months
Comparison of Truenat Pv/Pf and Truenat Pv/Pf High-Sens
Comparison between clinical performance of Truenat® Pv/Pf and Truenat® Pv/Pf Hi-Sens. The percentage difference between the clinical performance characteristics of Truenat® Pv/Pf and Truenat® Pv/Pf Hi-Sens with 95% confidence intervals using Tango's score method.
Time frame: 3 months
Comparison between Truenat Pv/Pf and Truenat Pv/Pf High-Sens and Realstar
Comparison between the clinical performance of Truenat® Pv/Pf and Truenat® Pv/Pf Hi-Sens with that of RealStar® Malaria Screen \& Type PCR Kit 1.0. The percentage difference between the clinical performance characteristics of the Truenat® tests (Truenat® Pv/Pf and Truenat® Pv/Pf Hi-Sens) and RealStar® Malaria Screen \& Type PCR Kit 1.0 with 95% confidence intervals using Tango's score method.
Time frame: 3 months
Foot odour collection
The number of volatile organic compound (foot odour samples) from Plasmodium positive and negative febrile patients that have been collected.
Time frame: 3 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.