Review of authorship for COVID-19 research conducted during the 2020 first-wave epidemic in Africa reveals emergence of promising African biomedical research and persisting asymmetry of international collaborations.

OBJECTIVES: The contribution of African authors to the biomedical literature is small. We evaluated the African and non-African scientific production published in the international literature on the COVID-19 in Africa during the first year of the epidemic (2020). METHODS: Papers on COVID-19 in Africa were extracted from the Medline (PubMed) database for bibliometric analysis including the proportions of three leading and last authors by study type, study country, authors' and laboratories/institutions' countries of affiliation and journal ranking. RESULTS: A total of 160 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. The majority (91.3%) was produced by half (53.7%) of African countries, with important regional disparities, and generally without sources of funding mentioned. The majority (>85.0) of authors in lead positions (first, second, third and last authors) were Africans. Only a small number (8.7%) of studies on COVID-19 in Africa were carried out by laboratories not on the African continent (mainly Europe, USA and China) and generally received funding. The last and first authors were more frequently of non-African origin in journals with an Impact Factor ranking ≥1, and more frequently of African origin in journals with a lower ranking (< 1). The first and last non-African authors tended to report their studies in high ranking ≥1 journals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the emergence of promising African research capable of publishing in indexed but low-impact factor medical journals and reveals the persistence of a North-South asymmetry in international cooperation in biomedical research with Africa.

Evaluation of the Practicability of Biosynex Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 AG+ for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein from Self-Collected Nasal Mid-Turbinate Secretions in the General Public in France.

Due to their ease-of-use, lateral flow assay SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests could be suitable candidates for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic self-test (Ag-RDST). We evaluated the practicability of the Ag-RDST BIOSYNEX Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 Ag+ (Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland), using self-collected nasal secretions from the turbinate medium (NMT), in 106 prospectively included adult volunteers living in Paris, France. The majority of the participants correctly understood the instructions for use (94.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.3-97.4), showing a great ability to perform the entire self-test procedure to obtain a valid and interpretable result (100%; 95% CI: 96.5-100), and demonstrated the ability to correctly interpret test results (96.2%; 95% CI: 94.2-97.5) with a high level of general satisfaction. About one in eight participants (# 15%) needed verbal help to perform or interpret the test, and only 3.8% of test results were misinterpreted. By reference to multiplex real-time RT-PCR, the Ag-RDST showed 90.9% and 100% sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and high agreement (98.1%), reliability (0.94), and accuracy (90.9%) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen. Taken together, our study demonstrates the high usability and accuracy of BIOSYNEX Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 Ag+ for supervised self-collected NMT sampling in an unselected adult population living in France.

Capillary whole-blood IgG-IgM COVID-19 self-test as a serological screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection adapted to the general public.

The practicability of a prototype capillary whole-blood IgG-IgM COVID-19 self-test (Exacto® COVID-19 self-test, Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland) as a serological screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection adapted to the general public was evaluated in a cross-sectional, general adult population study performed between April and May 2020 in Strasbourg, France, consisting of face-to-face, paper-based, semi-structured, and self-administrated questionnaires. Practicability was defined as the correct use of the self-test and the correct interpretation of the result. The correct use of self-test was conditioned by the presence of the control band after 15-min of migration. The correct interpretation of the tests was defined by the percent agreement between the tests results read and interpret by the participants compared to the expected results coded by the numbers and verified by trained observers. A total of 167 participants (52.7% female; median age, 35.8 years; 82% with post-graduate level) were enrolled, including 83 and 84 for usability and test results interpretation substudies, respectively. All participants (100%; 95% CI: 95.6-100) correctly used the self-test. However, 12 (14.5%; 95% CI: 8.5-23.6) asked for verbal help. The percent agreement between the tests results read and interpret by the participants compared to the expected results was 98.5% (95% CI: 96.5-99.4). However, misinterpretation occurred in only 2.3% of positive and 1.2% of invalid test results. Finally, all (100%) participants found that performing the COVID-19 self-test was easy; and 98.8% found the interpretation of the self-test results easy. Taken together, these pilot observations demonstrated for the first-time, high practicability and satisfaction of COVID-19 self-testing for serological IgG and IgM immune status, indicating its potential for use by the general public to complete the arsenal of available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in the urgent context of the COVID-19 epidemic.