Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Genes (Basel) ; 14(3)2023 03 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2281764

ABSTRACT

Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa and the sixth most affected by COVID-19 on the continent. Despite having experienced five infection waves, >499,000 cases, and ~7500 COVID-19-related deaths as of January 2023, there is still no detailed genomic epidemiological report on the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Ethiopia. In this study, we reconstructed and elucidated the COVID-19 epidemic dynamics. Specifically, we investigated the introduction, local transmission, ongoing evolution, and spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the first four infection waves using 353 high-quality near-whole genomes sampled in Ethiopia. Our results show that whereas viral introductions seeded the first wave, subsequent waves were seeded by local transmission. The B.1.480 lineage emerged in the first wave and notably remained in circulation even after the emergence of the Alpha variant. The B.1.480 was outcompeted by the Delta variant. Notably, Ethiopia's lack of local sequencing capacity was further limited by sporadic, uneven, and insufficient sampling that limited the incorporation of genomic epidemiology in the epidemic public health response in Ethiopia. These results highlight Ethiopia's role in SARS-CoV-2 dissemination and the urgent need for balanced, near-real-time genomic sequencing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Molecular Epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Ethiopia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/genetics
2.
PLoS One ; 17(10): e0268160, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140397

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostics are vital for curving the transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many commercially available antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are recommended by the WHO, their diagnostic performance has not yet been assessed in Ethiopia. So far, the vast majority of studies assessing diagnostic accuracies of rapid antigen tests considered RT-PCR as a reference standard, which inevitably leads to bias when RT-PCR is not 100% sensitive and specific. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ jointly with the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was done from July to September 2021 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during the third wave of the pandemic involving two health centers and two hospitals. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ and RT-PCR were obtained using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM). RESULTS: 438 COVID-19 presumptive clients were enrolled, 239 (54.6%) were females, of whom 196 (44.7%) had a positive RT-PCR and 158 (36.1%) were Panbio™ positive. The Panbio™ and RT-PCR had a sensitivity (95% CrI) of 99.6 (98.4-100) %, 89.3 (83.2-97.6) % and specificity (95% CrI) of 93.4 (82.3-100) %, and 99.1 (97.5-100) %, respectively. Most of the study participants, 318 (72.6%) exhibited COVID-19 symptoms; the most reported was cough 191 (43.6%). CONCLUSION: As expected the RT-PCR performed very well with a near-perfect specificity and a high, but not perfect sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of Panbio™ is coherent with the WHO established criteria of having a sensitivity ≥80% for Ag-RDTs. Both tests displayed high diagnostic accuracies in patients with and without symptoms. Hence, we recommend the use of the Panbio™ for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in clinical settings for screening purposes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Pandemics , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ethiopia/epidemiology , Bayes Theorem , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Antigens, Viral/analysis
3.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262178, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1637832

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is an ongoing public health pandemic regardless of the countless efforts made by various actors. Quality diagnostic tests are important for early detection and control. Notably, several commercially available one step RT-PCR based assays have been recommended by the WHO. Yet, their analytic and diagnostic performances have not been well documented in resource-limited settings. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of three commercially available one step reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays in Ethiopia in clinical setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June, 2021 on 279 respiratory swabs originating from community surveillance, contact cases and suspect cases. RNA was extracted using manual extraction method. Master-mix preparation, amplification and result interpretation was done as per the respective manufacturer. Agreements between RT-PCRs were analyzed using kappa values. Bayesian latent class models (BLCM) were fitted to obtain reliable estimates of diagnostic sensitivities, specificities of the three assays and prevalence in the absence of a true gold standard. RESULTS: Among the 279 respiratory samples, 50(18%), 59(21.2%), and 69(24.7%) were tested positive by TIB, Da An, and BGI assays, respectively. Moderate to substantial level of agreement was reported among the three assays with kappa value between 0 .55 and 0.72. Based on the BLCM relatively high specificities (95% CI) of 0.991(0.973-1.000), 0.961(0.930-0.991) and 0.916(0.875-0.952) and considerably lower sensitivities with 0.813(0.658-0.938), 0.836(0.712-0.940) and 0.810(0.687-0.920) for TIB MOLBIOL, Da An and BGI respectively were found. CONCLUSIONS: While all the three RT-PCR assays displayed comparable sensitivities, the specificities of TIB MOLBIOL and Da An were considerably higher than BGI. These results help adjust the apparent prevalence determined by the three RT-PCRs and thus support public health decisions in resource limited settings and consider alternatives as per their prioritization matrix.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/virology , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ethiopia/epidemiology , False Positive Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/methods , RNA, Viral/genetics , RNA, Viral/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
4.
J Multidiscip Healthc ; 14: 171-180, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1063266

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Rapid severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test kits are crucial for bridging diagnostic gaps in health facilities and community screening mainly in resource limited settings. However, there is no objective evidence on their diagnostic performance. Thus, the study aimed to evaluate comparative diagnostic performance of three selected SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid test kits in Ethiopia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 200 clients between May and July 2020 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The performance of three SARS-CoV-2 rapid test kits EGENE, CTK BIOTECKs Onsite, and ACON Biotech were evaluated using blood specimens against RT-PCR on respiratory swabs. Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with each other and to RT-PCR were computed using Vassarstats, MedCalc and SPSS version 23 statistical software. RESULTS: Test kits showed a heterogeneous comparative diagnostic performance in their sensitivity and specificity. The sensitivity was 61.18% (95% CI: 49.96-71.37%), 74.12% (95% CI: 63.28-82.74%) and 83.53% (95% CI: 73.57-90.38%) for kit A, B and C, respectively. Similarly, the specificity was 96.52% (90.81-98.88%), 94.78% (88.52-97.86%) and 94.78% (88.52-97.86%) for test kit A, B and C, respectively. The test kits have an agreement with RT-PCR with kappa value of 0.60 (0.48-0.83), 0.71 (0.65-0.93), and 0.80 (0.76-1.04) for A, B, and C, respectively. There was a significant difference on diagnostic performance among the three test kits and PCR with a p-value < 0.001 Cochran's Q test. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of the test kits was promising and recommended for COVID-19 diagnostics in combination with RT-PCR to detect more infected patients. It allows determining the seroprevalence of the virus and true extent of SARS-COV-2 community spread in resource limited settings. We underline countries to evaluate rapid diagnostic test kits before diagnostic use.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL