Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2026
Malaria rapid diagnostic tests: performance, pitfalls, and progress.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Steinhardt Laura C, Hwang Jimee
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have revolutionized malaria diagnosis in endemic settings. RDTs are simple to use and accurate for clinical cases, although sensitivity is reduced at parasite densities below 200 parasites/μl. However, increasing prevalence of hrp2/3 gene deletions in certain areas threaten utility of histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2)-based RDTs, and lingering HRP2 antigenemia can generate false-positive results after parasite clearance. This review summarizes current performance of malaria RDTs, threats to their validity, and recent innovations to improve their performance and continued role in malaria diagnosis.
RECENT FINDINGS: Most World Health Organization (WHO) prequalified RDTs perform well for clinical diagnosis, with only occasional exceptions, including a recently reported issue affecting several countries. RDT sensitivity is generally related to malaria transmission intensity, with higher proportions of false-negative results in lower-transmission areas. Newly prequalified lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH)-based RDTs perform well for both Plasmodium falciparum in areas with >5% hrp2/3 gene deletions and for Plasmodium vivax diagnosis. Several point-of-care alternatives to RDTs, including micro-fluidic devices, hemozoin-detecting devices, and automated hematology analyzers, have shown promising results in small studies, but require larger-scale trials before widespread use.
SUMMARY: RDTs remain a critical tool in clinical diagnosis of malaria, and newer pLDH-based tests perform well in areas where hrp2/3 gene deletions threaten validity of HRP2-based RDTs.
RECENT FINDINGS: Most World Health Organization (WHO) prequalified RDTs perform well for clinical diagnosis, with only occasional exceptions, including a recently reported issue affecting several countries. RDT sensitivity is generally related to malaria transmission intensity, with higher proportions of false-negative results in lower-transmission areas. Newly prequalified lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH)-based RDTs perform well for both Plasmodium falciparum in areas with >5% hrp2/3 gene deletions and for Plasmodium vivax diagnosis. Several point-of-care alternatives to RDTs, including micro-fluidic devices, hemozoin-detecting devices, and automated hematology analyzers, have shown promising results in small studies, but require larger-scale trials before widespread use.
SUMMARY: RDTs remain a critical tool in clinical diagnosis of malaria, and newer pLDH-based tests perform well in areas where hrp2/3 gene deletions threaten validity of HRP2-based RDTs.