High seroprevalence of Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals amidst vaccination roll-out in western Kenya.

The population's antibody response is a key factor in comprehending SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. This is especially important in African settings where COVID-19 impact, and vaccination rates are relatively low. This study aimed at characterizing the Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and Immunoglobulin M (IgM) in both SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals in Kisumu and Siaya counties in western Kenya using enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. The IgG and IgM overall seroprevalence in 98 symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in western Kenya between December 2021-March 2022 was 76.5% (95% CI = 66.9-84.5) and 29.6% (95% CI = 20.8-39.7) respectively. In terms of gender, males had slightly higher IgG positivity 87.5% (35/40) than females 68.9% (40/58). Amidst the ongoing vaccination roll-out during the study period, over half of the study participants (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.7-65.2) had not received any vaccine. About one third, (31.6%, 95% CI = 22.6-41.8) of the study participants had been fully vaccinated, with close to a quarter (13.3% 95% CI = 7.26-21.6) partially vaccinated. When considering the vaccination status and seroprevalence, out of the 31 fully vaccinated individuals, IgG seropositivity was 81.1% (95% CI = 70.2-96.3) and IgM seropositivity was 35.5% (95% CI = 19.22-54.6). Out of the participants that had not been vaccinated at all, IgG seroprevalence was 70.4% (95% CI 56.4-82.0) with 20.4% (95% CI 10.6-33.5) seropositivity for IgM antibodies. On PCR testing, 33.7% were positive, with 66.3% negative. The 32 positive individuals included 12(37.5%) fully vaccinated, 8(25%) partially vaccinated and 12(37.5%) unvaccinated. SARs-CoV-2 PCR positivity did not significantly predict IgG (p = 0.469 [95% CI 0.514-4.230]) and IgM (p = 0.964 [95% CI 0.380-2.516]) positivity. These data indicate a high seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in western Kenya. This suggests that a larger fraction of the population was infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the defined period than what PCR testing could cover.

The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices hold great promise, particularly for data generation for cutting-edge health research, and their demand has risen substantially in recent years. However, there is a shortage of aggregated insights into how wearables have been used in health research. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we aim to broadly overview and categorize the current research conducted with affordable wearable devices for health research. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to understand the use of affordable, consumer-grade wearables for health research from a population health perspective using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) framework. A total of 7499 articles were found in 4 medical databases (PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Studies were eligible if they used noninvasive wearables: worn on the wrist, arm, hip, and chest; measured vital signs; and analyzed the collected data quantitatively. We excluded studies that did not use wearables for outcome assessment and prototype studies, devices that cost >€500 (US $570), or obtrusive smart clothing. RESULTS: We included 179 studies using 189 wearable devices covering 10,835,733 participants. Most studies were observational (128/179, 71.5%), conducted in 2020 (56/179, 31.3%) and in North America (94/179, 52.5%), and 93% (10,104,217/10,835,733) of the participants were part of global health studies. The most popular wearables were fitness trackers (86/189, 45.5%) and accelerometer wearables, which primarily measure movement (49/189, 25.9%). Typical measurements included steps (95/179, 53.1%), heart rate (HR; 55/179, 30.7%), and sleep duration (51/179, 28.5%). Other devices measured blood pressure (3/179, 1.7%), skin temperature (3/179, 1.7%), oximetry (3/179, 1.7%), or respiratory rate (2/179, 1.1%). The wearables were mostly worn on the wrist (138/189, 73%) and cost <€200 (US $228; 120/189, 63.5%). The aims and approaches of all 179 studies revealed six prominent uses for wearables, comprising correlations-wearable and other physiological data (40/179, 22.3%), method evaluations (with subgroups; 40/179, 22.3%), population-based research (31/179, 17.3%), experimental outcome assessment (30/179, 16.8%), prognostic forecasting (28/179, 15.6%), and explorative analysis of big data sets (10/179, 5.6%). The most frequent strengths of affordable wearables were validation, accuracy, and clinical certification (104/179, 58.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Wearables showed an increasingly diverse field of application such as COVID-19 prediction, fertility tracking, heat-related illness, drug effects, and psychological interventions; they also included underrepresented populations, such as individuals with rare diseases. There is a lack of research on wearable devices in low-resource contexts. Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, we see a shift toward more large-sized, web-based studies where wearables increased insights into the developing pandemic, including forecasting models and the effects of the pandemic. Some studies have indicated that big data extracted from wearables may potentially transform the understanding of population health dynamics and the ability to forecast health trends.