Malaria Journal (Nov 2022)

Novel application of one-step pooled molecular testing and maximum likelihood approaches to estimate the prevalence of malaria parasitaemia among rapid diagnostic test negative samples in western Kenya

  • Monica P. Shah,
  • Winnie Chebore,
  • Robert H. Lyles,
  • Kephas Otieno,
  • Zhiyong Zhou,
  • Mateusz Plucinski,
  • Lance A. Waller,
  • Wycliffe Odongo,
  • Kim A. Lindblade,
  • Simon Kariuki,
  • Aaron M. Samuels,
  • Meghna Desai,
  • Rebecca M. Mitchell,
  • Ya Ping Shi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04323-2
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Detection of malaria parasitaemia in samples that are negative by rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) requires resource-intensive molecular tools. While pooled testing using a two-step strategy provides a cost-saving alternative to the gold standard of individual sample testing, statistical adjustments are needed to improve accuracy of prevalence estimates for a single step pooled testing strategy. Methods A random sample of 4670 malaria RDT negative dried blood spot samples were selected from a mass testing and treatment trial in Asembo, Gem, and Karemo, western Kenya. Samples were tested for malaria individually and in pools of five, 934 pools, by one-step quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Maximum likelihood approaches were used to estimate subpatent parasitaemia (RDT-negative, qPCR-positive) prevalence by pooling, assuming poolwise sensitivity and specificity was either 100% (strategy A) or imperfect (strategy B). To improve and illustrate the practicality of this estimation approach, a validation study was constructed from pools allocated at random into main (734 pools) and validation (200 pools) subsets. Prevalence was estimated using strategies A and B and an inverse-variance weighted estimator and estimates were weighted to account for differential sampling rates by area. Results The prevalence of subpatent parasitaemia was 14.5% (95% CI 13.6–15.3%) by individual qPCR, 9.5% (95% CI (8.5–10.5%) by strategy A, and 13.9% (95% CI 12.6–15.2%) by strategy B. In the validation study, the prevalence by individual qPCR was 13.5% (95% CI 12.4–14.7%) in the main subset, 8.9% (95% CI 7.9–9.9%) by strategy A, 11.4% (95% CI 9.9–12.9%) by strategy B, and 12.8% (95% CI 11.2–14.3%) using inverse-variance weighted estimator from poolwise validation. Pooling, including a 20% validation subset, reduced costs by 52% compared to individual testing. Conclusions Compared to individual testing, a one-step pooled testing strategy with an internal validation subset can provide accurate prevalence estimates of PCR-positivity among RDT-negatives at a lower cost.

Keywords