CHINESE JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY AND PARASITIC DISEASES >
Analysis of malaria detection capability of laboratories in the districts of Shanghai during 2017—2019
Received date: 2020-08-06
Revised date: 2020-10-28
Online published: 2021-07-05
Supported by
Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan of Shanghai(20DZ2200300);Research and Technology Development Project of Baise City(20202501)
Objective To recheck the blood samples of malaria cases sent by district-level centers for disease control and prevention (CDC), in Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (SCDC), and analyze the review results, in order to provide a basis for improving the malaria diagnostic capability of district CDCs.Methods Blood smears and whole blood samples submitted by the district CDC malaria laboratories were rechecked by SCDC using microscopic examination and nuclear acid detection (nested PCR) during 2017—2019. Using the examination by SCDC as the standard, the positive and negative coincidence rates of microscopic examination, and the sensitivity and specificity of malaria nucleic acid detection performed in district CDC malaria laboratories were analyzed. In 2019, blind assessment of malaria nucleic acid tests was conducted for all district CDCs of each district.Results A total of 232 malaria samples were submitted by district CDCs for rechecking in 2017—2019, among them 225 were complete samples (containing both blood smear and whole blood samples), with a completeness rate of 99.1% (225/227). Of the 225 complete samples, 99 samples were from Jinshan District (44.0%); 35 from Jing’an District (15.6%); 17 from Pudong New District (7.6%); 15 from Hongkou District (6.7%); Qingpu District and Chongming District submitted the least numbers of samples (0 and 1, respectively); while other districts provided less than 6.0% of the samples. The recheck of 225 complete samples showed an overall coincidence rate, positive coincidence rate and negative coincidence rate being 96.0% (216/225), 98.8% (170/172) and 86.8% (46/53), respectively, and the coincidence rate of nucleic acid detection 88.8% (103/116). The district CDCs used the quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) method for nucleic acid detection, resulting in a sensitivity of 76.6% (85/111), which was significantly different from that of the nested PCR method used by SCDC (87.4%, 97/111) (P < 0.05). The specificity of the two nucleic acid detection methods was 100.0%. Comprehensive evaluation of the 225 samples by using the two detection methods showed that the coincidence rate of district CDCs was 96.9% (218/225), and the misjudgment rate was 3.1% (7/225), including 5 with qualitative errors and 2 with errors in species identification. In 2019, the overall correct detection rate of blind assessment of malaria nucleic acid by district CDCs was 97.5% (78/80). Specifically, the correct detection rate of P. falciparum sample was 94.1% (32/34), which was not significantly different from those of the other four types of samples (P. vivax, P.ovale, P. malariae and negative infection) (P > 0.05). Conclusion From 2017 to 2019, the malaria laboratories of district CDCs showed a strong capability of malaria microscopic examination, but the sensitivity of nuclear acid detection needs to be improved.
Yao-guang ZHANG , Li JIANG , Zhen-yu WANG , Min ZHU , Qian ZHU , Xiao-jiang MA , Huan-yu WU . Analysis of malaria detection capability of laboratories in the districts of Shanghai during 2017—2019[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF PARASITOLOGY AND PARASITIC DISEASES, 2021 , 39(3) : 337 -342 . DOI: 10.12140/j.issn.1000-7423.2021.03.007
| [1] | World Health Organization. World malaria report 2020[R]. Geneva: WHO, 2020:18, 20. |
| [2] | Zhu M, Cai L, Wu HY, et al. Mid-term assessment report of malaria elimination action plan in Shanghai[J]. Chin Trop Med, 2018,18(4):297-302. (in Chinese) |
| [2] | ( 朱民, 蔡黎, 吴寰宇, 等. 上海市消除疟疾行动计划中期评估报告[J]. 中国热带医学, 2018,18(4):297-302.) |
| [3] | World Health Organization. Guidelines for the treatment of malaria: diagnosis of malaria (2010)[M]. Geneva: WHO, 2010. |
| [4] | Snounou G, Singh B. Nested PCR analysis of Plasmodium parasites[J]. Methods Mol Med, 2002,72:189-203. |
| [5] | National Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Workbook of malaria diagnosis reference laboratory[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2011:83. (in Chinese) |
| [5] | ( 中国疾病预防控制中心寄生虫病预防控制所. 疟疾诊断参比实验室工作手册[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2011:83.) |
| [6] | National Health and Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China. WS 259-2015 Diagnosis of malaria[S]. Beijing: Standards Presss of China, 2016. (in Chinese) |
| [6] | ( 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会. WS 259-2015 疟疾的诊断[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2016.) |
| [7] | Wang ZY, Jiang L, Zhang YG, et al. Comparative analysis of malaria detection ability of laboratories in Shanghai City from 2012 to 2015[J]. Chin J Schisto Control, 2017,29(3):305-309, 328. (in Chinese) |
| [7] | ( 王真瑜, 江莉, 张耀光, 等. 2012—2015年上海市实验室疟疾检测能力比较分析[J]. 中国血吸虫病防治杂志, 2017,29(3):305-309, 328.) |
| [8] | Li M, Xia ZG, Zhou SS. Analysis of inconsistence of Plasmodium detection in some malaria cases[J]. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis, 2019,37(4):464-471. (in Chinese) |
| [8] | ( 李美, 夏志贵, 周水森. 疟疾病例复核确认过程中检测结果不一致常见问题分析[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2019,37(4):464-471.) |
| [9] | Kamau E, Tolbert LS, Kortepeter L, et al. Development of a highly sensitive genus-specific quantitative reverse transcriptase real-time PCR assay for detection and quantitation of Plasmodium by amplifying RNA and DNA of the 18S rRNA genes[J]. J Clin Microbiol, 2011,49(8):2946-2953. |
| [10] | Li M, Wang ZY, Zhang T, et al. Exploration of using one-step reverse transcription PCR in detection of four species of human malaria parasites[J]. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis, 2016,34(6):500-505. (in Chinese) |
| [10] | ( 李美, 王真瑜, 张淘, 等. 一步反转录PCR技术在检测4种人疟原虫中的初步应用[J]. 中国寄生虫学与寄生虫病杂志, 2016,34(6):500-505.) |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |