The diagnosis and management of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is a crucial aspect in the current phases of malaria control and elimination, which will require the wider use of 8-aminoquinolines for both reducing Plasmodium falciparum transmission and achieving the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax. 8-aminoquinolines, such as primaquine, can induce severe haemolysis in G6PD-deficient individuals, potentially creating significant morbidity and undermining confidence in 8-aminoquinoline prescription. On the other hand, erring on the side of safety and excluding large numbers of people with unconfirmed G6PD deficiency from treatment with 8-aminoquinolines will diminish the impact of these drugs. Estimating the remaining G6PD enzyme activity is the most direct, accessible, and reliable assessment of the phenotype and remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of patients who could be harmed by the administration of primaquine. Genotyping seems an unambiguous technique, but its use is limited by cost and the large range of recognized G6PD genotypes. A number of enzyme activity assays diagnose G6PD deficiency, but they require a cold chain, specialized equipment, and laboratory skills. These assays are impractical for care delivery where most patients with malaria live. Improvements to the diagnosis of G6PD deficiency are required for the broader and safer use of 8-aminoquinolines to kill hypnozoites, while lower doses of primaquine may be safely used to kill gametocytes without testing. The discussions and conclusions of a workshop conducted in Incheon, Korea in May 2012 to review key knowledge gaps in G6PD deficiency are reported here.

The only currently available drug that effectively removes malaria hypnozoites from the human host is primaquine. The use of 8-aminoquinolines is hampered by haemolytic side effects in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient individuals. Recently a number of qualitative and a quantitative rapid diagnostic test (RDT) format have been developed that provide an alternative to the current standard G6PD activity assays. The WHO has recently recommended routine testing of G6PD status prior to primaquine radical cure whenever possible. A workshop was held in the Philippines in early 2015 to discuss key challenges and knowledge gaps that hinder the introduction of routine G6PD testing. Two point-of-care (PoC) test formats for the measurement of G6PD activity are currently available: qualitative tests comparable to malaria RDT as well as biosensors that provide a quantitative reading. Qualitative G6PD PoC tests provide a binomial test result, are easy to use and some products are comparable in price to the widely used fluorescent spot test. Qualitative test results can accurately classify hemizygous males, heterozygous females, but may misclassify females with intermediate G6PD activity. Biosensors provide a more complex quantitative readout and are better suited to identify heterozygous females. While associated with higher costs per sample tested biosensors have the potential for broader use in other scenarios where knowledge of G6PD activity is relevant as well. The introduction of routine G6PD testing is associated with additional costs on top of routine treatment that will vary by setting and will need to be assessed prior to test introduction. Reliable G6PD PoC tests have the potential to play an essential role in future malaria elimination programmes, however require an improved understanding on how to best integrate routine G6PD testing into different health settings.

We evaluated a battery of Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase diagnostic point-of-care tests (PoC) to assess the most suitable product in terms of performance and operational characteristics for remote areas. Samples were collected in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines and tested for G6PD deficiency with a fluorescent spot test (FST; Procedure 203, Trinity Biotech, Ireland), the semiquantitative WST8/1-methoxy PMS (WST; Dojindo, Japan) and the Carestart G6PD Rapid Diagnostic Test (CSG; AccessBio, USA). Results were compared to spectrophotometry (Procedure 345, Trinity Biotech, Ireland). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each test with cut-off activities of 10%, 20%, 30% and 60% of the adjusted male median. The adjusted male median was 270.5 IU/10¹² RBC. FST and WST were tested on 621 capillary blood samples, the CSG was tested on venous and capillary blood on 302 samples. At 30% G6PD activity, sensitivity for the FST was between 87.7% (95%CI: 76.8% to 93.9%) and 96.5% (95%CI: 87.9% to 99.5%) depending on definition of intermediate results; the WST was 84.2% (95%CI: 72.1% to 92.5%); and the CSG was between 68.8% (95%CI: 41.3% to 89.0%) and 93.8% (95%CI: 69.8% to 99.8%) when the test was performed on capillary or venous blood respectively. Sensitivity of FST and CSG (tested with venous blood) were comparable (p>0.05). The analysis of venous blood samples by the CSG yielded significantly higher results than FST and CSG performed on capillary blood (p<0.05). Sensitivity of the CSG varied depending on source of blood used (p<0.05). The operational characteristics of the CSG were superior to all other test formats. Performance and operational characteristics of the CSG performed on venous blood suggest the test to be a good alternative to the FST.