ABSTRACT
Background Fever is a common presenting symptom in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It was previously assumed that malaria was the cause in such patients, but its incidence has declined rapidly. The urgent need to develop point-of-care tests for the most important causes of non-malarial acute febrile illness is hampered by the lack of robust epidemiological data. We sought to obtain expert consensus on analytes which should be prioritized for inclusion in fingerprick blood-based multiplex lateral flow rapid diagnostic tests (LF-RDTs) targeted towards four categories of patients with acute non-malarial fever in South and Southeast Asian LMICs, stratified by age (paediatric vs. adult) and care setting (primary vs. secondary care).
Methodology/Principal Findings We conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi survey. A total of 84 panellists were invited, consisting of seven each from 12 countries, divided into three regional panels (Mainland Southeast Asia, Maritime Southeast Asia, and South Asia). Panellists were asked to rank their top seven analytes for inclusion in LF-RDTs to be used in each patient category, justify their choices, and indicate whether such LF-RDTs should be incorporated into algorithm-based clinical decision support tools. Thirty-six panellists (43%) participated in the first round and 44 (52%) in the second. There was consensus that such LF-RDTs should be incorporated into clinical decision support tools. At a minimum, these LF-RDTs should be able to diagnose dengue and enteric fever in all patient categories. There was a clear preference to develop LF-RDTs for pathogens not readily detected by existing technologies, and for direct diagnosis through antigen detection. Pathogen biomarkers were prioritized over host inflammatory biomarkers, with CRP being the only one ranked consistently highly.
Conclusions/Significance Our results provide guidance on prioritizing analytes for inclusion in context-specific multiplex LF-RDTs and similar platforms for non-malarial acute febrile illness, for which there is an urgent unmet need.
AUTHOR SUMMARY In rural South and Southeast Asia, most acute febrile illness was previously attributable to malaria but the incidence of malaria is declining. To aid diagnosis and prognosis in patients presenting with the common symptom of acute fever with no localising features but in whom malaria has been excluded, there is an urgent need to develop minimally-invasive rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) which can test for multiple pathogen and host biomarkers. Obtaining expert consensus opinions on what biomarkers these tests should detect will contribute greatly to their development, but there is a paucity of robust epidemiological data on the diverse non-malarial causes of acute fever. We determined the biomarkers which should be included in region-specific fingerprick blood-based RDTs tailored to four patient categories differentiated by age and level of care, in the form of seven-item lists ranked in decreasing order of priority. To provide context for these rank lists, we ascertained the principal factors influencing expert priority-setting and explored perceptions of the clinical utility of such RDTs. Our results provide essential region-specific guidance to aid development of RDTs for acute non-malarial fever, for which there was strong consensus for their inclusion in clinical decision-making tools for low- and semi-skilled healthcare staff.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [215604/Z/19/Z]. RC was also funded by the UK Government through a Commonwealth Scholarship, and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians through the Bushell Travelling Fellowship in Medicine or the Allied Sciences. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the manuscript. All authors had full access to the data and had final responsibility for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No ethical approval required
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
