Prospective trial evaluates diagnostic accuracy for malaria and CRP in febrile patients, suggesting improved management.
Management of malaria-negative febrile patients is hampered by a lack of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) that guide treatment decisions, increasing the risks of antibiotic overuse and antimicrobial resistance. The simultaneous detection of malaria and C-reactive protein (CRP), a potentially useful host biomarker for distinguishing between bacterial and nonbacterial infections, using RDTs could help address this challenge. A prospective study was conducted at seven sites in India from April to December 2019 to evaluate the performance of the SD BIOSENSOR STANDARD™ Q Malaria/CRP Duo Test (SD BIOSENSOR, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea) against expert microscopy for malaria and against a commercial biochemistry kit for CRP, with a total of 1,799 patients with suspected malaria included in the analysis. The prevalence of malaria parasitemia according to microscopy was 13.3% (3.3% Plasmodium falciparum [P. falciparum], 10.1% Plasmodium vivax [P. vivax]). The Duo test was used to diagnose malaria, P. falciparum, and P. vivax infections, with sensitivities of 97.9% (95% CI: 95.2%-99.1%), 91.4% (95% CI: 81.4%-96.3%), and 95.0% (95% CI: 90.7%-97.3%), respectively. The Duo test performed better for detecting pan malaria and P. vivax infections compared with the routine RDT (SD BIOLINE Malaria P.f/pan antigen test; sensitivity 86.1% [95% CI: 81.1%-89.9%] and 79.9% [95% CI: 73.4%-85.1%] for malaria and P. vivax, respectively). The Duo test's sensitivity and specificity for detecting CRP at levels of 20 mg/L or higher were estimated at 87.4% (95% CI: 84.7%-89.7%) and 94.0% (95% CI: 92.4%-95.3%), respectively. The satisfactory agreement between test results and standard reference methods suggests that the test can be used in malaria-endemic settings; however, additional studies are needed to assess its impact on malaria testing and antibiotic prescription practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Srivastava et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: