ArticleMalaria journal2019
Comparison of msp genotyping and a 24 SNP molecular assay for differentiating Plasmodium falciparum recrudescence from reinfection.
Article in Malaria journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent World Health Organization guidelines for conducting anti-malarial drug efficacy clinical trials recommend genotyping Plasmodium falciparum genes msp1 and msp2 to distinguish recrudescence from reinfection. A more recently developed potential alternative to this method is a molecular genotyping assay based on a panel of 24 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers.
methodsPerformance parameters of these two genotyping methods were compared using data from two recently completed drug efficacy trials. Blood samples from two anti-malarial therapeutic trials were analysed by both msp genotyping and the 24 SNP assay. Additionally, to conserve time and resources, the statistical program R was used to select the most informative SNPs for a set of unrelated Malawian samples to develop a truncated SNP-based assay for the region surrounding Blantyre, Malawi. The ability of this truncated assay to distinguish reinfection from recrudescence when compared to the full 24 SNP assay was then analysed using data from the therapeutic trials.
resultsA total of 360 samples were analysed; 66 for concordance of msp and SNP barcoding methodologies, and 294 for assessing the most informative of the 24 SNP markers. SNP genotyping performed comparably to msp genotyping, with only one case of disagreement among the 50 interpretable results, where the SNP assay identified the sample as reinfection and the msp typing as recrudescence. Furthermore, SNP typing was more robust; only 6% of samples were uninterpretable by SNP typing, compared to 19.7% when msp genotyping was used. For discriminating reinfection from recrudescence, a truncated 6 SNP assay was found to perform at 95.1% the accuracy of the full 24 SNP bar code.
conclusionsThe use of SNP analysis has similar sensitivity to the standard msp genotyping in determining recrudescence from reinfection. Although more expensive, SNP typing is faster and less work intensive. Limiting the assay to those SNPs most informative in the geographical region of interest may further decrease the workload and the cost, making this technique a feasible and affordable alternative in drug efficacy trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.