Skip to main content
Download PDF

Rapid diagnostic tests failing to detect infections by Plasmodium falciparum encoding pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes in a non-endemic setting

Malaria Journal volume 19, Article number: 179 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting the histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) have a central position for the management of Plasmodium falciparum infections. Yet, variable detection of certain targeted motifs, low parasitaemia, but also deletion of pfhrp2 gene or its homologue pfhrp3, may result in false-negative RDT leading to misdiagnosis and delayed treatment. This study aimed at investigating the prevalence, and understanding the possible causes, of P. falciparum RDT-negative infections at Montpellier Academic Hospital, France.

Methods

The prevalence of falsely-negative RDT results reported before and after the introduction of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay, as part as the malaria screening strategy in January 2017, was analysed. Negative P. falciparum RDT infections were screened for pfhrp2 or pfhrp3 deletion; and exons 2 were sequenced to show a putative genetic diversity impairing PfHRP2 detection.

Results

The overall prevalence of P. falciparum negative RDTs from January 2006 to December 2018 was low (3/446). Whereas no cases were reported from 2006 to 2016 (0/373), period during which the malaria diagnostic screen was based on microscopy and RDT, prevalence increased up to 4.1% (3/73) between 2017 and 2018, when molecular detection was implemented for primary screening. Neither pfhrp2/3 deletion nor major variation in the frequency of repetitive epitopes could explain these false-negative RDT results.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates the presence of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes in three P. falciparum RDT-negative infections and reviews the possible reasons for non-detection of HRP2/3 antigens in a non-endemic setting. It highlights the emergence of falsely negative rapid diagnostic tests in a non-endemic setting and draws attention on the risk of missing malaria cases with low parasitaemia infections using the RDT plus microscopy-based strategy currently recommended by French authorities. The relevance of a novel diagnostic scheme based upon a LAMP assay is discussed.

Background

Malaria remains a major public health issue in tropical regions and accounts for a significant burden in non-endemic areas. Imported malaria indeed represents one of the most prevalent infectious diseases among travelers and migrants in industrialized countries, France being the most impacted European country [1]. A cross-sectional study of 43,333 French malaria cases reported an 85% rate of Plasmodium falciparum infection and a significant increase in severe cases between 1996 and 2016 [2]. Accurate diagnosis and prompt treatment are essential to prevent life-threatening complications mostly caused by P. falciparum [3]. Biological screening procedures include light microscopy, immunochromatography or molecular techniques used either individually or in combination.

Microscopic diagnosis, by examination of Giemsa-stained thin and thick blood smears, remains the standard method to identify and quantify Plasmodium parasites but may be time-consuming for initial screening, especially in non-endemic countries where samples are often negative, and relies upon highly trained personnel [4]. On the other hand, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have emerged as a safe, easy to perform, alternative to microscopy [5]. Most RDTs target repetitive epitopes specific to P. falciparum which are encoded by an abundant secreted antigen, the histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2). Its homologue, PfHRP3, shares significant sequence homologies and, as such, may be recognized by monoclonal antibodies raised against PfHRP2 [6]. Although diagnostic performances vary greatly between brands [7], PfHRP2-based RDTs generally display higher sensitivities and specificities for the diagnosis of P. falciparum infections than those targeting pan-Plasmodium aldolase or lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) [8, 9]. A growing number of studies yet reported false-negative RDTs results due to partial or complete gene deletion of pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 (reviewed in [10]). Genetic diversity producing variations in the targeted amino-acid repeats may also affect test performances [6, 11, 12]. Alternative diagnostic approaches include molecular methods which display high sensitivity but are generally technically demanding and time consuming, thus not suitable for urgent diagnosis [13]. In this context, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays have proven highly effective for rapid Plasmodium screening [14,15,16,17,18].

Since 2017, according to the French National Authority for Health [19] and the French Infectious Diseases Society (SPILF) [20], microscopy is still the reference method for initial screening and follow-up and may be combined with RDTs targeting both pan-Plasmodium and PfHRP2 antigens. Both techniques were used at the Parasitology-Mycology Department of Montpellier Academic Hospital for all suspected malaria cases until December 2016, when a novel strategy, based upon a LAMP assay and a PfHRP2-based RDT, was introduced for primary diagnosis of malaria. This allowed detecting falsely-negative RDT results, of which the cause was investigated in this study.

Methods

Study design

The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence and possible causes of RDT-negative P. falciparum infections over 13 years, from January 2006 to December 2018, when two diagnostic schemes for malaria screening were used. The study population included all cases of P. falciparum imported malaria diagnosed at the Parasitology-Mycology Department of Montpellier Academic Hospital, France.

Malaria diagnostic strategies

Two distinct procedures for screening patients with clinical suspicion of malaria (i.e. any febrile patient with a history of travel to malaria-endemic areas), both using antigenic detection by a RDT, were applied in the laboratory (Fig. 1). From January 2006 to December 2016, initial screenings were performed by PfHRP2-based RDTs combined with microscopic examination of thin and thick blood smears (Fig. 1a). In January 2017, a LAMP assay was implemented associated with a RDT, replacing microscopy when both antigenic and molecular tests are negative (Fig. 1b). When either test was positive, thin and thick stained blood films were examined for Plasmodium identification and quantification.

Fig. 1
figure1

Distinct malaria diagnostic strategies applied from January 2006 to December 2016 (a) and from January 2017 to December 2018 (b). During the first period (a), ICT Malaria Combo Cassette Test (ICT Diagnostics) was used from January 2006 to August 2009 and SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan (Standard Diagnostics, Inc.; product code 05FK60), was used from September 2009 to December 2016. During the second period (b), SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan (Standard Diagnostics, Inc.; product code 05FK60) was continued

Full size image

Laboratory procedures

Rapid immunochromatography tests were performed according to manufacturers’ instructions. ICT Malaria Combo Cassette Test (ICT Diagnostics; product code ML02), which targets pan-aldolase and PfHRP2 antigens, was used from January 2006 to August 2009. SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan (Standard Diagnostics, Inc.; product code 05FK60), detecting pLDH and PfHRP2 antigens, was used from September 2009 to December 2018.

Thin films were stained with May-Grünwald Giemsa and were examined using oil immersion magnification (1000×) for at least 20 min before being considered negative. Parasites density was estimated as the percentage of infected red blood cells.

Thick smears were stained with Giemsa [21]. All the spot was examined under 1000× magnification. For this study, parasite densities of false negative RDT samples, expressed as the number of parasites/µL, was assessed on thick blood smears and corresponds to the number of parasites per 200 leukocytes, based upon an estimated average of 8000 leukocytes/µL of blood.

For LAMP assays, samples were processed using the Alethia® Malaria kit (Meridian®), targeting a pan-Plasmodium mitochondrial DNA sequence, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Analysis of false-negative results

All samples with conflicting results (i.e. positive pan LAMP and negative RDT) were further analysed for molecular and antigenic testing at the Microbiology Laboratory of Nîmes Academic Hospital (France). Samples were retested 2 days after patient sampling by another RDT used for routine practice: the BinaxNOW RDT (Inverness Medical Innovations, 100 Inc.; product code 660-000) targeting pan aldolase and PfHRP2 antigens. For molecular screening, DNA was extracted from 200µL of whole blood using EZ1® DNA Blood 200 µL kits (QIAGEN®) on the Biorobot® EZ1 workstation, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Two in-house qPCR methods, one distinguishing Plasmodium species by specific melting curves of the 18S rRNA [22] and one detecting the P. falciparum-specific cox1 gene [23], were used to confirm malaria infection and P. falciparum identification.

Amplification and sequencing of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3

Samples positive for P. falciparum and presenting RDT false-negative results were tested for putative pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 gene deletion. A P. falciparum RDT-positive sample from Gabon diagnosed in January 2019 with a parasitaemia at 0.05% was included for differential analysis of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 sequences compared to those of RDT-falsely negative samples. Genomic sequences of pfhrp2 (PF3D7_0831800) and pfhrp3 (PF3D7_1372200) were retrieved from PlasmoDB database (http://www.PlasmoDB.org). Pair of primers specific to the 5′ and 3′ ends of exon 2 of pfhrp2 (CAAAAGGACTTAATTTAAATAAGAG; AATAAATTTAATGGCGTAGGCA) (expected size: 816 bp) and pfhrp3 (AAATAAGAGATTATTACACGAAAG; TGGTGTAAGTGATGCGTAGT) (expected size: 698 bp) were used to assess gene deletion following previous recommendations [24]. Amplification of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 was performed using PfuII polymerase (Agilent) under the following cycling conditions: 94 °C for 2 min followed by 35 cycles of 94 °C for 20 s, 54 °C for 20 s, 62 °C for 90 s and 62° for 7 min. PCR products were purified using spin columns (QIAGEN®) and sent for Sanger sequencing (Eurofins Genomic®). Nucleotide sequences were translated into corresponding amino acids and aligned against the Pf3D7 reference genome using NPS@ (Network Protein Sequence Analysis) software and ESPript 3.0 program for data assembling. Frequency of repetitive histidine and alanine motifs (i.e. AHHAHHAAD and AHHAAD) were assessed and sensitivities were predicted according to Baker’s model [11].

Results

Detection of P. falciparum cases falsely negative for RDT

A total of 446 P. falciparum positive samples were diagnosed at the Parasitology Department of the Academic Hospital of Montpellier from January 2006 to December 2018. Almost all patients originated from African countries (Fig. 2). During this period, only three samples with negative RDT results and positive detection by microscopic, LAMP and qPCR assays were detected (Table 1), yielding an overall prevalence of RDT-falsely negative P. falciparum infections of 0.67%. In-house qPCR methods were used as the reference to confirm P. falciparum infection and exclude possible co-infection with another Plasmodium species. Of note, this prevalence was null for the 373 P. falciparum infections reported from 2006 to 2016, but raised to 4.1% (over 73 P. falciparum infections) between January 2017 and December 2018, i.e. after the introduction of the novel scheme for primary diagnosis of malaria. The three patients presented fever with history of recent travelling from endemic countries: Cameroun, Ivory Coast or Gabon in June 2017, August 2018 and December 2018, respectively. Non-detection of PfHRP2 in these three samples was confirmed by two RDTs from different brands (i.e. SD Bioline and BinaxNOW). Parasite densities in RDT-negative samples were estimated on thin and thick blood smears and ranged from < 0.001 to 0.05% or ~ 5 parasites/µL to ~ 800 parasites/µL, respectively (Table 1).

Fig. 2
figure2

Countries of origin for the 446 P. falciparum positive samples reported from January 2006 to December 2018

Full size image
Table 1 Parasitemiae of the three RDT-negative P. falciparum infections in this study
Full size table

Amplification of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes

In view of this increase in falsely negative RDTs, and because of the growing numbers of studies reporting strains lacking pfhrp2 and/or pfhrp3 genes (reviewed in [10]), P. falciparum isolates were tested for putative gene deletion.. Genes encoding PfHRP2 and PfHRP3 are present on chromosome 8 and 13, respectively, with two exons being interrupted by one intron (Fig. 3). Here, using primers specific to exon 2, pfhrp2 (Fig. 3a) and pfhrp3 (Fig. 3b) fragments were amplified in the positive control and the three RDT-falsely negative isolates (06/2017; 08/2018; 12/2018), with sizes ranging from 600 to 900 bp, This allowed ruling out pfhrp2/3 deletion as the cause of these falsely negative RDTs.

Fig. 3
figure3

Amplifications of exon2 of pfhrp2 (a) and pfhrp3 (b) from P. falciparum negative RDT isolates. First lane: molecular ladder; second lane: positive control; third to fifth lines: false negative RDT isolates

Full size image

Sequence variations in the pfhrp2 gene

Exon 2 of pfhrp2 is the major source of repetitive motifs detected by PfHRP2-based RDTs; however, variations in the frequency of targeted repeats may influence accurate binding of specific antibodies [6]. As antigenic variants may have been the cause of these negative RDTs, amino acid sequences from exon 2 of pfhrp2 (Fig. 4a) and pfhrp3 (Fig. 4b), from the positive control and the three RDT-falsely negative samples, were aligned against the P. falciparum reference genome (Table 1, Fig. 4a). A high sequence polymorphism was found for PfHRP2. PfHRP2 contains repeated histidine and alanine motifs of which type 2 (AHHAHHAAD) and type 7 (AHHAAD) may be predictive of RDT sensitivity in low parasitaemia infections [11]. Here, according to the Baker’s model, predicting reactivity at parasites densities < 200 parasites/µL when the number of type 2 x type 7 repeats is > 43, only one isolate (08/2018) out of the three reported cases was predicted to escape detection (Table 2).

Fig. 4
figure4

Amino acid alignments of pfhrp2 (a) and pfhrp3 (b) reveal genetic polymorphisms among P. falciparum isolates

Full size image
Table 2 Pfhrp2 sequences of studied samples and predictive sensitivity of the antigenic test according to Baker’s model
Full size table

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence and understanding the possible causes of RDT-negative P. falciparum cases over a long period during which two different diagnostic schemes were used at the Montpellier Academic Hospital (January 2006 to December 2018). Using the second diagnostic scheme, three cases of P. falciparum false-negative RDTs were detected, while no case had ever been reported when RDTs were combined solely with microscopy techniques. Amplifications of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 in parasite isolates allowed ruling out gene deletion as the cause of non-detection by RDTs. Although this study presents some limitations due to its retrospective nature, it allowed reconsidering the ability of PfHRP2-based RDTs to detect all P. falciparum infections in the laboratory and may thus be valuable for the community.

Various factors may influence the performances of PfHRP2-based RDTs. First, results may be operator-dependent and rely on good product design and manufacturing quality [25]. All falsely negative RDTs analysed in this study were performed by well-trained operators. Two distinct brands were used, both known to give a panel detection score (i.e. the percentage of malaria samples in the panel giving a positive result) of more than 90% when tested on P. falciparum parasites at 200 parasites/µL [26]. Second, the level of parasitaemia is critical. Although some studies have reported RDTs failing to detect infections with high parasitaemia, the majority of these false-negative results occurred with low parasite densities, between 100 to 500 parasites/µL (reviewed in [10]). Detection rates of both RDT brands indeed decreased at these parasitaemia levels [26], e.g. 75% for SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan®vs 100% for parasitaemia > 500 parasites/µL [27]. Here, three cases of false-negative RDT results were reported over 13 years: two displaying parasitaemia < 200/µL and one approximately 800 parasites/µL. If one may assume that the first two RDT failures were due to low parasite densities, the case from Gabon (12/2018) presenting 800 parasites/µL is intriguing.

Since the first demonstration of P. falciparum parasites lacking pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes in Peru [28], other studies, including African isolates, have reported deletions causing false-negative RDT results [29,30,31,32,33,34]. The World Health Organization recommends parasitological confirmation before treating patients with clinically suspected malaria [35]. In this context, parasites lacking pfhrp2 or pfhrp3 may have spread in a broader range of endemic regions, impairing clinical case management and control efforts for malaria elimination [36]. However, no deletion of pfhrp2 nor pfhrp3 genes was found in all three samples, consistent with the low prevalence of such deletions [37]. Alike previous studies reporting genetic diversity in field isolates from various geographical regions [10,11,12, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44] the pfhrp2 gene was found highly polymorphic. A binary logistic model used to predict RDT detection sensitivity [11] revealed only one isolate (08/2018) at risk of non-detection. Yet, no statistical correlation between the frequency of repetitive epitopes and detection rates could be found in a previous study [39]. Moreover, genetic polymorphism does not appear to affect the detection of infections above 200 parasites/µL [11]. Taken together, genetic diversity of pfhrp2 does not appear to be the cause of the increasing rate of P. falciparum negative RDT results in the laboratory. The possibility of low expression of HRP2/3 antigens cannot be ruled out in the absence of quantitative analysis at the protein level [45]. Anti-HRP2 antibodies binding to the circulating antigens may also reduce the diagnostic sensitivity of PfHRP2-based RDTs [46]. In addition, an infection with a mixture of HRP2-negative and HRP2-positive parasites (with a predominance of the first, the second being undetectable) remains a possibility.

The observed overall prevalence of falsely negative RDTs is low (0.67%), although similar to that found in France at a national scale between 2012 and 2017 (57/6118; 0.93%) (French National Reference Centre for Imported Malaria, S. Houzé, pers. commun.). It is interesting to relate the emergence of RDT false-negative results to the introduction of a novel strategy for the biological diagnosis of malaria in the laboratory. While no false-negative results had been identified over an 11-years period (2006–2016), all cases were reported between January 2017 and December 2018, i.e. after the implementation of a new malaria diagnostic scheme based upon a RDT in combination with a LAMP assay. A hypothesis to explain the emergence of falsely negative RDTs would be a reduction in quality of the tests at the stage of manufacture since 2017 but this has not been reported. One could also hypothesize that the introduction of a molecular method, more sensitive than microscopy and antigenic tests [14,15,16,17,18], has allowed detecting low parasitaemia infections for which the ‘classical’ RDT plus microscopy-based strategy may yield negative results. However, according to the records on the ‘pre-LAMP’ period, and given that the Academic Hospital deals with most malaria cases in the area, no patient with negative laboratory tests developed symptomatic malaria, suggesting that, if any, misdiagnosed patients have cured spontaneously. The use of microscopy for cross-checking RDT-negative results requires well-trained personnel and is time consuming, hence might not be suited for ruling out a diagnosis of malaria with very low parasite densities in a non-endemic setting [47]. The French National Authority for Health recommends to repeat screening tests after 24 h to 48 h in case of negative results in a suggestive clinical context [19]. Indeed, even low parasitaemia infections may result in symptomatic malaria in non-immune individuals; and misdiagnosis may delay the initiation of the treatment and sometimes result in a dramatic outcome [10].

Conclusion

Through the analysis of P. falciparum RDT-negative results in a non-endemic setting, this study reviews the possible reasons for non-detection of HRP2/3 antigens and highlights the absence of gene deletion in P. falciparum infections diagnosed since 2006. It draws attention on the risk of missing malaria cases with low parasitaemia infections using the diagnostic strategy currently recommended by French authorities. In this context, this study may lay stepping-stones towards recommendations including molecular detection for malaria diagnosis in non-endemic countries.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

RDT:

Rapid diagnostic test

PfHRP2/3:

Histidine-rich protein 2/3

LAMP:

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification

pLDH:

Pan lactate dehydrogenase

SPILF:

French Infectious Diseases Society

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. 1.

    Tatem AJ, Jia P, Ordanovich D, Falkner M, Huang Z, Howes R, et al. The geography of imported malaria to non-endemic countries: a meta-analysis of nationally reported statistics. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017;17:98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kendjo E, Houzé S, Mouri O, Taieb A, Gay F, Jauréguiberry S, et al. Epidemiologic trends in malaria incidence among travelers returning to Metropolitan France, 1996-2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e191691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hänscheid T. Current strategies to avoid misdiagnosis of malaria. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003;9:497–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Zimmerman PA, Howes RE. Malaria diagnosis for malaria elimination. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2015;28:446–54.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rossi IA, D’Acremont V, Prod’Hom G, Genton B. Safety of falciparum malaria diagnostic strategy based on rapid diagnostic tests in returning travellers and migrants: a retrospective study. Malar J. 2012;11:377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lee N, Baker J, Andrews KT, Gatton ML, Bell D, Cheng Q, et al. Effect of sequence variation in Plasmodium falciparum histidine- rich protein 2 on binding of specific monoclonal antibodies: implications for rapid diagnostic tests for malaria. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:2773–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    WHO. Malaria rapid diagnostic test performance. Results of WHO product testing of malaria RDTs: round 8 (2016–2018). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/9789241514965/en/.

  8. 8.

    Marx A, Pewsner D, Egger M, Nüesch R, Bucher HC, Genton B, et al. Meta-analysis: accuracy of rapid tests for malaria in travelers returning from endemic areas. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:836–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ochola LB, Vounatsou P, Smith T, Mabaso MLH, Newton CRJC. The reliability of diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis and management of malaria in the absence of a gold standard. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006;6:582–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gendrot M, Fawaz R, Dormoi J, Madamet M, Pradines B. Genetic diversity and deletion of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 and 3: a threat to diagnosis of P falciparum malaria. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25:580–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Baker J, McCarthy J, Gatton M, Kyle DE, Belizario V, Luchavez J, et al. Genetic diversity of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 (PfHRP2) and its effect on the performance of PfHRP2-based rapid diagnostic tests. J Infect Dis. 2005;192:870–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fontecha G, Pinto A, Escobar D, Matamoros G, Ortiz B. Genetic variability of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich proteins 2 and 3 in Central America. Malar J. 2019;18:31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Zheng Z, Cheng Z. Advances in molecular diagnosis of malaria. Adv Clin Chem. 2017;80:155–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Charpentier E, Benichou E, Pagès A, Chauvin P, Fillaux J, Alexis V, et al. Performance evaluation of different strategies based on microscopy techniques, rapid diagnostic test and molecular loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the diagnosis of imported malaria. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020;26:115–21.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Oriero EC, Jacobs J, Van Geertruyden J-P, Nwakanma D, D’Alessandro U. Molecular-based isothermal tests for field diagnosis of malaria and their potential contribution to malaria elimination. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015;70:2–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Perera RS, Ding XC, Tully F, Oliver J, Bright N, Bell D, et al. Development and clinical performance of high throughput loop-mediated isothermal amplification for detection of malaria. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0171126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Polley SD, González IJ, Mohamed D, Daly R, Bowers K, Watson J, et al. Clinical evaluation of a loop-mediated amplification kit for diagnosis of imported malaria. J Infect Dis. 2013;208:637–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ponce C, Kaczorowski F, Perpoint T, Miailhes P, Sigal A, Javouhey E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for screening patients with imported malaria in a non-endemic setting. Parasite. 2017;24:53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Haute Autorité de Santé. Evaluation des actes de diagnostic biologique des infections à Plasmodium [Internet]. Service Communication, St Denis La Plaine, France, 2016. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_2636855/fr/evaluation-des-actes-de-diagnostic-biologique-des-infections-a-plasmodium. Accessed 24 July 2019.

  20. 20.

    Paludisme: rcp 2017 - Actualités - Documents - spilf – infectiologie. http://www.infectiologie.com/fr/actualites/paludisme-rcp-2017_-n.html. Accessed 9 Sept 2019.

  21. 21.

    Thellier M, Datry A, Alfa Cissé O, San C, Biligui S, Silvie O, et al. Diagnosis of malaria using thick bloodsmears: definition and evaluation of a faster protocol with improved readability. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 2002;96:115–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mangold KA, Manson RU, Koay ESC, Stephens L, Regner M, Thomson RB, et al. Real-time PCR for detection and identification of Plasmodium spp. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:2435–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Elsayed S, Plewes K, Church D, Chow B, Zhang K. Use of molecular beacon probes for real-time PCR detection of Plasmodium falciparum and other plasmodium species in peripheral blood specimens. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:622–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cheng Q, Gatton ML, Barnwell J, Chiodini P, McCarthy J, Bell D, et al. Plasmodium falciparum parasites lacking histidine-rich protein 2 and 3: a review and recommendations for accurate reporting. Malar J. 2014;13:283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    WHO. False-negative RDT results and implications of new reports of P. falciparum histidine-rich protein 2/3 gene deletions. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/information-note-hrp2-based-rdt/en/. Accessed 17 Aug 2019.

  26. 26.

    WHO. Malaria rapid diagnostic test performance. Results of WHO product testing of malaria RDTs: Round 4. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/rapid_diagnostic/en/.

  27. 27.

    Ratsimbasoa A, Fanazava L, Radrianjafy R, Ramilijaona J, Rafanomezantsoa H, Ménard D. Evaluation of two new immunochromatographic assays for diagnosis of malaria. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008;79:670–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gamboa D, Ho MF, Bendezu J, Torres K, Chiodini PL, Barnwell JW, et al. A large proportion of P. falciparum isolates in the Amazon region of Peru lack pfhrp2 and pfhrp3: implications for malaria rapid diagnostic tests. PLoS One. 2010;5:e8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Amoah LE, Abankwa J, Oppong A. Plasmodium falciparum histidine rich protein-2 diversity and the implications for PfHRP 2: based malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Ghana. Malar J. 2016;15:101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Koita OA, Doumbo OK, Ouattara A, Tall LK, Konaré A, Diakité M, et al. False-negative rapid diagnostic tests for malaria and deletion of the histidine-rich repeat region of the hrp2 gene. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;86:194–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kozycki CT, Umulisa N, Rulisa S, Mwikarago EI, Musabyimana JP, Habimana JP, et al. False-negative malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Rwanda: impact of Plasmodium falciparum isolates lacking hrp2 and declining malaria transmission. Malar J. 2017;16:123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Parr JB, Anderson O, Juliano JJ, Meshnick SR. Streamlined, PCR-based testing for pfhrp2- and pfhrp3-negative Plasmodium falciparum. Malar J. 2018;17:137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Watson OJ, Slater HC, Verity R, Parr JB, Mwandagalirwa MK, Tshefu A, et al. Modelling the drivers of the spread of Plasmodium falciparum hrp2 gene deletions in sub-Saharan Africa. eLife. 2017;6:e25008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Berhane A, Anderson K, Mihreteab S, Gresty K, Rogier E, Mohamed S, et al. Major threat to malaria control programs by Plasmodium falciparum lacking histidine-rich protein 2, Eritrea. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018;24:462–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    WHO. Overview of malaria treatment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/treatment/overview/en/. Accessed 17 Aug 2019.

  36. 36.

    Gatton ML, Dunn J, Chaudhry A, Ciketic S, Cunningham J, Cheng Q. Implications of parasites lacking Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2 on malaria morbidity and control when rapid diagnostic tests are used for diagnosis. J Infect Dis. 2017;215:1156–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    WHO. Protocol for estimating the prevalence of pfhrp2/pfhrp3 gene deletions among symptomatic falciparum patients with false-negative RDT results. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/hrp2-deletion-protocol/en/. . Accessed 17 Aug 2019.

  38. 38.

    Atroosh WM, Al-Mekhlafi HM, Al-Jasari A, Sady H, Al-Delaimy AK, Nasr NA, et al. Genetic variation of pfhrp2 in Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Yemen and the performance of HRP2-based malaria rapid diagnostic test. Parasit Vectors. 2015;8:388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Baker J, Ho M-F, Pelecanos A, Gatton M, Chen N, Abdullah S, et al. Global sequence variation in the histidine-rich proteins 2 and 3 of Plasmodium falciparum: implications for the performance of malaria rapid diagnostic tests. Malar J. 2010;9:129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Deme AB, Park DJ, Bei AK, Sarr O, Badiane AS, Gueye PEHO, et al. Analysis of pfhrp2 genetic diversity in Senegal and implications for use of rapid diagnostic tests. Malar J. 2014;13:34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kumar Bharti P, Singh Chandel H, Krishna S, Nema S, Ahmad A, Udhayakumar V, et al. Sequence variation in Plasmodium falciparum histidine rich proteins 2 and 3 in Indian isolates: implications for malaria rapid diagnostic test performance. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Mariette N, Barnadas C, Bouchier C, Tichit M, Ménard D. Country-wide assessment of the genetic polymorphism in Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax antigens detected with rapid diagnostic tests for malaria. Malar J. 2008;7:219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Nderu D, Kimani F, Thiong’o K, Akinyi M, Karanja E, Meyer CG, et al. PfHRP2-PfHRP3 diversity among Kenyan isolates and comparative evaluation of PfHRP2/pLDH malaria RDT with microscopy and nested PCR methodologies. Parasitol Int. 2018;67:793–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Wurtz N, Fall B, Bui K, Pascual A, Fall M, Camara C, et al. Pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum isolates from Dakar, Senegal: impact on rapid malaria diagnostic tests. Malar J. 2013;12:34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Baker J, Gatton ML, Peters J, Ho M-F, McCarthy JS, Cheng Q. Transcription and expression of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich proteins in different stages and strains: implications for rapid diagnostic tests. PLoS One. 2011;6:e22593.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Ho M-F, Baker J, Lee N, Luchavez J, Ariey F, Nhem S, et al. Circulating antibodies against Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich proteins 2 interfere with antigen detection by rapid diagnostic tests. Malar J. 2014;13:480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Hartmeyer GN, Hoegh SV, Skov MN, Kemp M. Use of loop-mediated isothermal amplification in a resource-saving strategy for primary malaria screening in a non-endemic setting. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;100:566–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to D.E. Benet, A.R. Gomes, J.J. Rubio-Lopez, R.M. Martins for technical recommendations and scientific discussion, and to F. Michel and C. Thomas for technical assistance.

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, UMR MiVEGEC, Montpellier, France

    Grégoire Pasquier, Milène Sasso, Laurence Lachaud, Patrick Bastien, Yvon Sterkers & Maude F. Leveque

  2. Department of Parasitology-Mycology, CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier, France

    Grégoire Pasquier, Vincent Azoury, Laëtitia Laroche, Emmanuelle Varlet-Marie, Laurence Lachaud, Patrick Bastien, Yvon Sterkers & Maude F. Leveque

  3. Laboratory of Microbiology, CHU de Nîmes, Nîmes, France

    Milène Sasso

  4. Centre National de Référence du Paludisme, APHP, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France

    Sandrine Houzé

Authors
  1. Grégoire Pasquier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent Azoury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Milène Sasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laëtitia Laroche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emmanuelle Varlet-Marie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sandrine Houzé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Laurence Lachaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Patrick Bastien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yvon Sterkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maude F. Leveque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design; YS and MFL. Data collection; GP, VA, LL, EV, SH, LL, PB. PCR experiments: GP, VA, MS, MFL. Data analysis; GP, VA, MS, SH, LL, PB, YS, MFL. Writing; PB, YS, MFL with input from all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maude F. Leveque.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This work was carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations; it does not include potentially identifying patients/participants’ information. The study corresponds to a non-interventional retrospective study which is, according to the “Code de la Santé Publique” (CSP Art L1121-1.1), exempt from informed consent requirement and do not require approval by an ethics committee.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pasquier, G., Azoury, V., Sasso, M. et al. Rapid diagnostic tests failing to detect infections by Plasmodium falciparum encoding pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 genes in a non-endemic setting. Malar J 19, 179 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-020-03251-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • False-negative RDTs
  • Imported malaria
  • Gene deletion
  • Genetic diversity
  • LAMP
  • Screening
  • Low parasitemia
  • Microscopy
  • Misdiagnosis

Malaria Journal

ISSN: 1475-2875

Contact us