Blood films
| Species | Appearance | Periodicity | Liver persistent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plasmodium vivax |  | tertian | yes |
| Plasmodium ovale |  | tertian | yes |
| Plasmodium falciparum |  | tertian | no |
| Plasmodium malariae |  | quartan | no |
The most economic, preferred, and reliable diagnosis of malaria is microscopic examination of blood films because each of the four major parasite species has distinguishing characteristics. Two sorts of blood film are traditionally used. Thin films are similar to usual blood films and allow species identification because the parasite's appearance is best preserved in this preparation. Thick films allow the microscopist to screen a larger volume of blood and are about eleven times more sensitive than the thin film, so picking up low levels of infection is easier on the thick film, but the appearance of the parasite is much more distorted and therefore distinguishing between the different species can be much more difficult. With the pros and cons of both thick and thin smears taken into consideration, it is imperative to utilize both smears while attempting to make a definitive diagnosis.
From the thick film, an experienced microscopist can detect parasite levels (or parasitemia) down to as low as 0.0000001% of red blood cells[citation needed]. Diagnosis of species can be difficult because the early trophozoites ("ring form") of all four species look identical and it is never possible to diagnose species on the basis of a single ring form; species identification is always based on several trophozoites.
One important thing to note is that P. malariae and P. knowlesi (which is the most common cause of malaria in South-east Asia) look very similar under the microscope. However, P. knowlesi parasitemia increases very fast and causes more severe disease than P. malariae, so it is important to identify and treat infections quickly. Therefore modern methods such as PCR (see "Molecular methods" below) or monoclonal antibody panels that can distinguish between the two should be used in this part of the world.
Antigen tests
See also: Malaria antigen detection tests
For areas where microscopy is not available, or where laboratory staff are not experienced at malaria diagnosis, there are commercial antigen detection tests that require only a drop of blood. Immunochromatographic tests (also called: Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Antigen-Capture Assay or "Dipsticks") have been developed, distributed and fieldtested. These tests use finger-stick or venous blood, the completed test takes a total of 15–20 minutes, and the results are read visually as the presence or absence of colored stripes on the dipstick, so they are suitable for use in the field. The threshold of detection by these rapid diagnostic tests is in the range of 100 parasites/µl of blood (commercial kits can range from about 0.002% to 0.1% parasitemia) compared to 5 by thick film microscopy. One disadvantage is that dipstick tests are qualitative but not quantitative – they can determine if parasites are present in the blood, but not how many.
The first rapid diagnostic tests were using P. falciparum glutamate dehydrogenase as antigen. PGluDH was soon replaced byP.falciparum lactate dehydrogenase, a 33 kDa oxidoreductase [EC 1.1.1.27]. It is the last enzyme of the glycolytic pathway, essential forATP generation and one of the most abundant enzymes expressed by P.falciparum. PLDH does not persist in the blood but clears about the same time as the parasites following successful treatment. The lack of antigen persistence after treatment makes the pLDH test useful in predicting treatment failure. In this respect, pLDH is similar to pGluDH. Depending on which monoclonal antibodies are used, this type of assay can distinguish between all five different species of human malaria parasites, because of antigenic differences between their pLDH isoenzymes.
Molecular methods
Molecular methods are available in some clinical laboratories and rapid real-time assays (for example, QT-NASBA based on the polymerase chain reaction) are being developed with the hope of being able to deploy them in endemic areas.
PCR (and other molecular methods) is more accurate than microscopy. However, it is expensive, and requires a specialized laboratory. Moreover, levels of parasitemia are not necessarily correlative with the progression of disease, particularly when the parasite is able to adhere to blood vessel walls. Therefore more sensitive, low-tech diagnosis tools need to be developed in order to detect low levels of parasitemia in the field.
Differential
Fever and septic shock are commonly misdiagnosed as severe malaria in Africa, leading to a failure to treat other life-threatening illnesses. In malaria-endemic areas, parasitemia does not ensure a diagnosis of severe malaria, because parasitemia can be incidental to other concurrent disease. Recent investigations suggest that malarial retinopathy is better (collective sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 90%) than any other clinical or laboratory feature in distinguishing malarial from non-malarial coma.
Prevention
Methods used in order to prevent the spread of disease, or to protect individuals in areas where malaria is endemic, include prophylactic drugs, mosquito eradication and the prevention of mosquito bites.
The continued existence of malaria in an area requires a combination of high human population density, high mosquito population density and high rates of transmission from humans to mosquitoes and from mosquitoes to humans. If any of these is lowered sufficiently, the parasite will sooner or later disappear from that area, as happened in North America, Europe and much ofMiddle East. However, unless the parasite is eliminated from the whole world, it could become re-established if conditions revert to a combination that favours the parasite's reproduction.[citation needed] Many countries are seeing an increasing number of imported malaria cases owing to extensive travel and migration.
Many researchers argue that prevention of malaria may be more cost-effective than treatment of the disease in the long run, but the capital costs required are out of reach of many of the world's poorest people. Economic adviser Jeffrey Sachs estimates that malaria can be controlled for US$3 billion in aid per year.
A 2008 study that examined international financing of malaria control found large regional variations in the levels of average annual per capita funding ranging from US$0.01 in Myanmar to US$147 in Suriname. The study found 34 countries where the funding was less than US$1 per capita, including 16 countries where annual malaria support was less than US$0.5. The 16 countries included 710 million people or 50% of the global population exposed to the risks of malaria transmission, including seven of the poorest countries in Africa (Côte d'Ivoire, Republic of the Congo, Chad, Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, and Guinea) and two of the most densely populated stable endemic countries in the world (Indonesia and India).
Brazil, Eritrea, India, and Vietnam, unlike many other developing nations, have successfully reduced the malaria burden. Common success factors have included conducive country conditions, a targeted technical approach using a package of effective tools, data-driven decision-making, active leadership at all levels of government, involvement of communities, decentralized implementation and control of finances, skilled technical and managerial capacity at national and sub-national levels, hands-on technical and programmatic support from partner agencies, and sufficient and flexible financing.
