Evaluation of the CareStart™ glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) rapid diagnostic test in the field settings and assessment of perceived risk from primaquine at the community level in Cambodia

Bertha Wojnarski, Chanthap Lon, Darapiseth Sea, Somethy Sok, Sabaithip Sriwichai, Soklyda Chann, Sohei Hom, Threechada Boonchan, Sokna Ly, Chandara Sok, Samon Nou, Pheaktra Oung, Nareth Kong, Vannak Pheap, Khengheang Thay, Vy Dao, Worachet Kuntawunginn, Mitra Feldman, Panita Gosi, Nillawan Buathong, Mali Ittiverakul, Nichapat Uthaimongkol, Rekol Huy, Michele Spring, Dysoley Lek, Philip Smith, Mark M Fukuda and Mariusz Wojnarski

PLOS ONE, 2020, vol. 15, issue 1, 1-18

Abstract: Background: Primaquine is an approved radical cure treatment for Plasmodium vivax malaria but treatment can result in life-threatening hemolysis if given to a glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficient (G6PDd) patient. There is a need for reliable point-of-care G6PD diagnostic tests. Objectives: To evaluate the performance of the CareStart™ rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in the hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) and village malaria workers (VMWs) in field settings, and to better understand user perceptions about the risks and benefits of PQ treatment guided by RDT results. Methods: This study enrolled 105 HCWs and VMWs, herein referred to as trainees, who tested 1,543 healthy adult male volunteers from 84 villages in Cambodia. The trainees were instructed on G6PD screening, primaquine case management, and completed pre and post-training questionnaires. Each trainee tested up to 16 volunteers in the field under observation by the study staff. Results: Out of 1,542 evaluable G6PD volunteers, 251 (16.28%) had quantitative enzymatic activity less than 30% of an adjusted male median (8.30 U/g Hb). There was no significant difference in test sensitivity in detecting G6PDd between trainees (97.21%), expert study staff in the field (98.01%), and in a laboratory setting (95.62%) (p = 0.229); however, test specificity was different for trainees (96.62%), expert study staff in the field (98.14%), and experts in the laboratory (98.99%) (p

Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228207 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 28207&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0228207

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228207

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().