Yoon JG, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Mar;35(20):e195. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e195

Four different rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for malaria were evaluated by testing 82 healthy control patients, 89 Plasmodium vivax -infected patients, and 92 rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive nonmalaria patients. The false-positive rate ranged from 2.2% to 13% in RF-positive patients. High RF levels are associated with malaria RDT false positivity.

A newly identified coronavirus, designated as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2), has spread rapidly from its epicenter in China to more than 150 countries across six continents. In this study, we have designed three reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) primer sets to detect the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP), Envelope (E) and Nucleocapsid protein (N) genes of SARS CoV-2. For one tube reaction, the detection limits for five combination SARS CoV-2 LAMP primer sets (RdRP/E, RdRP/N, E/N, RdRP/E/N and RdRP/N/Internal control (actin beta)) were evaluated with a clinical nasopharyngeal swab sample. Among the five combination, the RdRP/E and RdRP/N/IC multiplex LAMP assays showed low detection limits. The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay were evaluated and compared to that of the widely used Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene, Inc., Seoul, South Korea) and PowerChek™ 2019-nCoV Real-time PCR kit (Kogenebiotech, Seoul, South Korea) for 130 clinical samples from 91 SARS CoV-2 patients and 162 NP specimens from individuals with (72) and without (90) viral respiratory infections. The multiplex RdRP (FAM)/N (CY5)/IC (Hex) RT-LAMP assay showed comparable sensitivities (RdRP: 93.85%, N: 94.62% and RdRP/N: 96.92%) to that of the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (100%) and superior to those of PowerChek™ 2019-nCoV Real-time PCR kit (RdRP: 92.31%, E: 93.85% and RdRP/E: 95.38%).

Background: The malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are now widely used in the world. Compared to Plasmodium falciparum, a poor sensitivity of RDTs was reported against Plasmodium vivax based on the adopted antibody against pan-Plasmodium antigen lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) or aldolase. Levels of pLDH were measured from patient with P. vivax, and the correlations between the levels of pLDH and the sensitivities of RDTs were analysed among Republic of Korea (ROK) isolates. Methods: Three RDTs, OptiMAL test, SD BIOLINE Malaria Ag P.f/Pan test, Humasis Malaria Pf/Pan antigen test, and the Genedia pLDH antigen ELISA were performed with blood samples from 152 febrile patients and 100 healthy controls. Results: Three malaria RDTs revealed sensitivities between 85.5 (131/152) and 86.8% (132/152) with highest sensitivity for the detection of P.vivax by pLDH antigen ELISA test (145/152, 95.4%) in comparison to traditional microscopy using Giemsa–stained slides. None of the healthy control tested positive by three RDTs or ELISA, indicating 100% specificity in their respective test. Levels of pLDH among Korean P. vivax isolates ranged between 0 ng/mL and 22,387.2 ng/mL (mean ± standard deviation 3,917.5 ± 6,120.9 ng/mL). The lower detection limits of three RDTs were between 25 and 50 ng/mL with artificially diluted samples. The moderate degree of correlation was observed between parasitaemia and concentrations of pLDH (r = 0.4, p < 0.05). Conclusion: The pLDH levels of P. vivax are the main explanation for the variations in the performance of pLDH-based RDTs. Therefore, comparing sensitivities of RDT may need to include targeted biomarker value of patients.