Head-to-head comparison of two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) kits for diagnosis of malaria in a non-endemic setting

Abstract

Abstract Background Light microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) have long been the recommended diagnostic methods for malaria. However, in recent years, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) techniques have been shown to offer superior performance, in particular concerning low-grade parasitaemia, by delivering higher sensitivity and specificity with low laboratory capacity requirements in little more than an hour. In this study, the diagnostic performance of two LAMP kits were assessed head-to-head, compared to highly sensitive quantitative real time PCR (qPCR), in a non-endemic setting. Methods In this retrospective validation study two LAMP kits; Alethia® Illumigene Malaria kit and HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria Pan Detection (PDT) kit, were evaluated head-to-head for detection of Plasmodium-DNA in 133 biobanked blood samples from suspected malaria cases at the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory of Region Skåne, Sweden to determine their diagnostic performance compared to qPCR. Results Of the 133 samples tested, qPCR detected Plasmodium DNA in 41 samples (defined as true positives), and the two LAMP methods detected 41 and 37 of those, respectively. The results from the HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria PDT kit were in complete congruence with the qPCR, with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 91.40–100%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 96.07–100%). The Alethia® Illumigene Malaria kit had a sensitivity of 90.24% (95% CI 76.87–97.28) and a specificity of 95.65% (95% CI 89.24–98.80) as compared to qPCR. Conclusions This head-to-head comparison showed higher performance indicators of the HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria PDT kit compared to the Alethia® illumigene Malaria kit for detection of malaria.

Keywords

• Malaria
• LAMP
• Loop-mediated isothermal amplification
• Diagnosis