ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely diagnosis is essential in limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The reference standard, rRT-PCR, requires specialized laboratories, costly reagents, and a long turnaround time. Antigen RDTs provide a feasible alternative to rRT-PCR since they are quick, relatively inexpensive, and do not require a laboratory. The WHO requires that Ag RDTs have a sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%. METHODS: This evaluation was conducted at 11 health facilities in Kenya between March and July 2021. We enrolled persons of any age with respiratory symptoms and asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. We collected demographic and clinical information and two nasopharyngeal specimens from each participant for Ag RDT testing and rRT-PCR. We calculated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Ag RDT against the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) rRT-PCR test. RESULTS: We evaluated the Ag RDT in 2,245 individuals where 551 (24.5%, 95% CI: 22.8-26.3%) tested positive by rRT-PCR. Overall sensitivity of the Ag RDT was 46.6% (95% CI: 42.4-50.9%), specificity 98.5% (95% CI: 97.8-99.0%), PPV 90.8% (95% CI: 86.8-93.9%) and NPV 85.0% (95% CI: 83.4-86.6%). Among symptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 60.6% (95% CI: 54.3-66.7%) and specificity was 98.1% (95% CI: 96.7-99.0%). Among asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 34.7% (95% CI 29.3-40.4%) and specificity was 98.7% (95% CI: 97.8-99.3%). In persons with onset of symptoms <5 days (594/876, 67.8%), sensitivity was 67.1% (95% CI: 59.2-74.3%), and 53.3% (95% CI: 40.0-66.3%) among those with onset of symptoms >7 days (157/876, 17.9%). The highest sensitivity was 87.0% (95% CI: 80.9-91.8%) in symptomatic individuals with cycle threshold (Ct) values ≤30. CONCLUSION: The overall sensitivity and NPV of the Panbio™ Ag RDT were much lower than expected. The specificity of the Ag RDT was high and satisfactory; therefore, a positive result may not require confirmation by rRT-PCR. The kit may be useful as a rapid screening tool only for symptomatic patients in high-risk settings with limited access to rRT-PCR. A negative result should be interpreted based on clinical and epidemiological information and may require retesting by rRT-PCR.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Antigens, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Health Facilities , Kenya/epidemiology , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
The majority of Kenya's > 3 million camels have antibodies against Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), although human infection in Africa is rare. We enrolled 243 camels aged 0-24 months from 33 homesteads in Northern Kenya and followed them between April 2018 to March 2020. We collected and tested camel nasal swabs for MERS-CoV RNA by RT-PCR followed by virus isolation and whole genome sequencing of positive samples. We also documented illnesses (respiratory or other) among the camels. Human camel handlers were also swabbed, screened for respiratory signs, and samples were tested for MERS-CoV by RT-PCR. We recorded 68 illnesses among 58 camels, of which 76.5% (52/68) were respiratory signs and the majority of illnesses (73.5% or 50/68) were recorded in 2019. Overall, 124/4692 (2.6%) camel swabs collected from 83 (34.2%) calves in 15 (45.5%) homesteads between April-September 2019 screened positive, while 22 calves (26.5%) recorded reinfections (second positive swab following ≥ 2 consecutive negative tests). Sequencing revealed a distinct Clade C2 virus that lacked the signature ORF4b deletions of other Clade C viruses. Three previously reported human PCR positive cases clustered with the camel infections in time and place, strongly suggesting sporadic transmission to humans during intense camel outbreaks in Northern Kenya.