Practical reasons for poor RDT performance: Difference between revisions
From MalariaETC
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="widthe:90%; border-style: solid; border-width: 4px; color:black" | {| class="wikitable" style="widthe:90%; border-style: solid; border-width: 4px; color:black" | ||
|colspan="1" style = "font-size:100%; color:black; background: FFFAFA"|<span style="color:navy>''' | |colspan="1" style = "font-size:100%; color:black; background: FFFAFA"|<span style="color:navy>'''Practical considerations for MDT use'''</span> | ||
Bibilography: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652944/] | Bibilography: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652944/] | ||
Revision as of 13:52, 13 September 2024
Navigation
Go Back
| Practical considerations for MDT use
Bibilography: [1] Selection and procurement of MDTs 2. Heat stability of the RDT test storage RDT tests can suffer degradation if stored in inappropriate heat or humidity. Generally tests are stable in the range 2–30°C or greater. However these limits may be exceeded in many countries and manufacturers recommend continuous product refrigeration to the point of use. This may create problems for developing countries where cold-chain continuity cannot be guaranteed. 3. Age of test or reagents
In the case of malarial RDTs, the WHO requires a panel detection score of 75% at a parasitaemia of 200 parasites/μl in order for the product to warrant endorsement. [16] However, the threshold for pyrogenic onset has been shown to vary from 10 to 200,000 parasites/μl, with 22% of patients developing their first acute fever at a parasite load below 200/μl. [75] Thus, even for the select assortment of commercial malaria RDTs demonstrating compliance with WHO standards, sufficiently low limits of detection have not been demonstrated for the early and accurate diagnosis of nascent infections, or of asymptomatic carriers.
|