Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Topics in Antiviral Medicine ; 30(1 SUPPL):331-332, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1880280

ABSTRACT

Background: SARS-CoV2 antibody testing is an important auxillary test especially for retrospective diagnosis or in patients with long COVID-19 or multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood. Epidemiological serology studies may also assist public health planning. Access to formal laboratory testing is not universal in many low-and middle-income (LMIC) countries and rapid lateral flow antibody tests are an attractive alternative. Performance of these tests has been inconsistent. A large-scale study was undertaken in South Africa, during the beta and delta waves, to assess the field-based performance of rapid point of care (POC) COVID-19 antibody tests. Methods: Symptomatic, ambulatory persons under investigation (PUIs) aged 18 years and older, presenting for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis at public health facilities in three provinces, South Africa were enrolled at baseline. All patients completed a questionnaire regarding symptoms. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken and processed for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing using a GeneXpert (Cepheid, USA), or manual assay (ThermoFisher TaqPath assay or Seegene Allplex assay) on a real-time platform at routine accredited National Health Laboratory Service laboratories as per routine national protocols. Concomitantly, trained study staff performed three facility-based POC lateral flow antibody tests on a on a fingerstick sample and blood was collected for formal serology. POC tests were selected following a rapid in-laboratory evaluation. Asymptomatic contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited into the asymptomatic study arm and rapid tests and PCR were performed. PCR and rapid positive patients and 500 negative controls were followed up at 5-14 days. Antibody tests were compared with formal serology performed on 2 platforms-Euroimmun (Euroimmun, Lubeck) IgA and IgG anti-S antibodies and Abbott Architect IgG test. Results: The sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values of tests for PUIs and contacts were calculated (Table 1)∗. Analyses using serology as a reference are forthcoming. Conclusion: Compared with PCR, performance of rapid POC COVID-19 antibody tests was poor with low sensitivity. This may reflect the patient cohort tested as humoral responses typically develop from day 7-14. The tests are unlikely to be useful for acute diagnosis but sensitivity may improve at later timepoints and further follow up data will be analysed by duration of symptom onset, severity of symptoms and wave (beta versus delta).

2.
Topics in Antiviral Medicine ; 30(1 SUPPL):331, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1880279

ABSTRACT

Background: Access to SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is a bottleneck globally, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Reliable point-of-care (POC) diagnostics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are cheaper and easier to scale-up than PCR especially in LMICs, and will facilitate interruption of transmission. We report the field-based effectiveness of rapid point-of-care (POC) antigen COVID-19 tests during the beta and delta waves, in South Africa. Methods: We enrolled symptomatic, ambulatory persons under investigation (PUIs) aged 18 years and older, presenting for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis at public health facilities in three provinces, South Africa. All patients completed a questionnaire regarding symptoms. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken and processed for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing using either GeneXpert (Cepheid, USA), or with a manual assay (ThermoFisher TaqPath assay or Seegene Allplex assay) on a real-time PCR platform at routine, accredited National Health Laboratory Service laboratories, as per routine national protocols. Concomitantly, trained study staff performed three facility-based POC antigen tests on a nasal/nasopharyngeal swab, as recommended by the manufacturer. Asymptomatic contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited into the asymptomatic study arm and rapid tests and PCR were performed. The sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) values of tests for PUIs and contacts were calculated using PCR as the reference standard. Results: Between Oct 2020-2021 1816 participants were enrolled;472 (26%) tested PCR or rapid test positive;235 positives (49.8%) and 532 negatives were followed up at 5-14 days;574 asymptomatic contacts were enrolled, of which 21 (3.7%) were PCR positive. Performance of the three antigen tests are shown in Table 1∗. Conclusion: In a real world setting, during the beta and delta waves, compared with PCR the sensitivity of rapid antigen tests ranged from 35-68%. This may reflect low viral loads at diagnosis. Further work will compare antigen test performance in patients with high versus lower cycle threshold (Ct) values. Meanwhile, PCR testing capacity needs urgent scale-up in LMICs and improved POC diagnostics are needed to facilitate COVID-19 diagnosis in LMICs.

3.
S Afr Med J ; 111(11): 1078-1083, 2021 11 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1534499

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Estimates of prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity (seroprevalence) for tracking the COVID-19 epidemic are lacking for most African countries. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in a sentinel cohort of patient samples received for routine testing at tertiary laboratories in Johannesburg, South Africa. METHODS: This sentinel study was conducted using remnant serum samples received at three National Health Laboratory Service laboratories in the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) district. Collection was from 1 August to 31 October 2020. We extracted accompanying laboratory results for glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), creatinine, HIV, viral load and CD4 T-cell count. An anti-SARS-CoV-2 targeting the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the coronavirus with higher affinity for IgM and IgG antibodies was used. We reported crude as well as population-weighted and test-adjusted seroprevalence. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine whether age, sex, HIV and diabetic status were associated with increased risk for seropositivity. RESULTS: A total of 6 477 samples were analysed, the majority (n=5 290) from the CoJ region. After excluding samples with no age or sex stated, the model population-weighted and test-adjusted seroprevalence for the CoJ (n=4 393) was 27.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 25.4 - 28.6). Seroprevalence was highest in those aged 45 - 49 years (29.8%; 95% CI 25.5 - 35.0) and in those from the most densely populated areas of the CoJ. Risk for seropositivity was highest in those aged 18 - 49 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.52; 95% CI 1.13 - 2.13; p=0.0005) and in samples from diabetics (aOR 1.36; 95% CI 1.13 - 1.63; p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study conducted between the first and second waves of the pandemic shows high levels of current infection among patients attending public health facilities in Gauteng Province.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sentinel Surveillance , Seroepidemiologic Studies , South Africa/epidemiology , Young Adult
4.
S Afr Med J ; 110(9): 842-845, 2020 07 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-743542

ABSTRACT

Antibody tests for the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV2, have been developed both as rapid diagnostic assays and for high-throughput formal serology platforms. Although these tests may be a useful adjunct to a diagnostic strategy, they have a number of limitations. Because of the antibody and viral dynamics of the coronavirus, their sensitivity can be variable, especially at early time points after symptom onset. Additional data are required on the performance of the tests in the South African population, especially with regard to development and persistence of antibody responses and whether antibodies are protective against reinfection. These tests may, however, be useful in guiding the public health response, providing data for research (including seroprevalence surveys and vaccine initiatives) and development of therapeutic strategies.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections , Immunologic Tests/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Serologic Tests/methods , Betacoronavirus/genetics , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies , South Africa/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL