State of malaria diagnostic testing at clinical laboratories in the United States, 2010: a nationwide survey

• Authors: Francisca A. Abanyie, Emory University; Paul M. Arguin, Emory University; Julie R. Gutman, Emory University
• Journal Title: Malaria Journal
• Volume: Volume 10, Number 340
• Publisher: BioMed Central | 2011-11-10, Pages 1-10
• Type of Work: Article | Final Publisher PDF
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2875-10-340
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery; Health Sciences, Public Health

Abstract

Background The diagnosis of malaria can be difficult in non-endemic areas, such as the United States, and delays in diagnosis and errors in treatment occur too often. Methods A nationwide survey of laboratories in the United States and its nine dependent territories was conducted in 2010 to determine factors that may contribute to shortcomings in the diagnosis of malaria. This survey explored the availability of malaria diagnostic tests, techniques used, and reporting practices. Results The survey was completed by 201 participants. Ninety percent reported that their laboratories had at least one type of malaria diagnostic test available on-site. Nearly all of the respondents' laboratories performed thick and thin smears on-site; approximately 50% had access to molecular testing; and only 17% had access to rapid diagnostic tests on-site. Seventy-three percent reported fewer than five confirmed cases of malaria in their laboratory during the 12-month period preceding the survey. Twenty-eight percent stated that results of species identification took more than 24 hours to report. Only five of 149 respondents that performed testing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week complied with all of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines for analysis and reporting of results. Conclusion Although malaria diagnostic testing services were available to a majority of U.S. laboratories surveyed, very few were in complete compliance with all of the CLSI guidelines for analysis and reporting of results, and most respondents reported very few cases of malaria annually. Laboratories' difficulty in adhering to the rigorous CLSI guidelines and their personnel's lack of practice and proficiency may account for delays and errors in diagnosis. It is recommended that laboratories that infrequently process samples for malaria seek opportunities for practice and proficiency training annually and take advantage of available resources to assist in species identification.