Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(4): 507-518, 2022 Apr.
Article | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1839425

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The WHO-recommended tuberculosis screening and diagnostic algorithm in ambulatory people living with HIV is a four-symptom screen (known as the WHO-recommended four symptom screen [W4SS]) followed by a WHO-recommended molecular rapid diagnostic test (eg Xpert MTB/RIF [hereafter referred to as Xpert]) if W4SS is positive. To inform updated WHO guidelines, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative screening tests and strategies for tuberculosis in this population. METHODS: In this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, we updated a search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and conference abstracts for publications from Jan 1, 2011, to March 12, 2018, done in a previous systematic review to include the period up to Aug 2, 2019. We screened the reference lists of identified pieces and contacted experts in the field. We included prospective cross-sectional, observational studies and randomised trials among adult and adolescent (age ≥10 years) ambulatory people living with HIV, irrespective of signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. We extracted study-level data using a standardised data extraction form, and we requested individual participant data from study authors. We aimed to compare the W4SS with alternative screening tests and strategies and the WHO-recommended algorithm (ie, W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all in terms of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), overall and in key subgroups (eg, by antiretroviral therapy [ART] status). The reference standard was culture. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020155895. FINDINGS: We identified 25 studies, and obtained data from 22 studies (including 15 666 participants; 4347 [27·7%] of 15 663 participants with data were on ART). W4SS sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 72-89) and specificity was 42% (29-57). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) had similar sensitivity to (77% [61-88]), but higher specificity (74% [61-83]; n=3571) than, W4SS. Cough (lasting ≥2 weeks), haemoglobin (<10 g/dL), body-mass index (<18·5 kg/m2), and lymphadenopathy had high specificities (80-90%) but low sensitivities (29-43%). The WHO-recommended algorithm had a sensitivity of 58% (50-66) and a specificity of 99% (98-100); Xpert for all had a sensitivity of 68% (57-76) and a specificity of 99% (98-99). In the one study that assessed both, the sensitivity of sputum Xpert Ultra was higher than sputum Xpert (73% [62-81] vs 57% [47-67]) and specificities were similar (98% [96-98] vs 99% [98-100]). Among outpatients on ART (4309 [99·1%] of 4347 people on ART), W4SS sensitivity was 53% (35-71) and specificity was 71% (51-85). In this population, a parallel strategy (two tests done at the same time) of W4SS with any chest x-ray abnormality had higher sensitivity (89% [70-97]) and lower specificity (33% [17-54]; n=2670) than W4SS alone; at a tuberculosis prevalence of 5%, this strategy would require 379 more rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but detect 18 more tuberculosis cases. Among outpatients not on ART (11 160 [71·8%] of 15 541 outpatients), W4SS sensitivity was 85% (76-91) and specificity was 37% (25-51). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) alone had a similar sensitivity to (83% [79-86]), but higher specificity (67% [60-73]; n=3187) than, W4SS and a sequential strategy (both test positive) of W4SS then C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) had a similar sensitivity to (84% [75-90]), but higher specificity than (64% [57-71]; n=3187), W4SS alone; at 10% tuberculosis prevalence, these strategies would require 272 and 244 fewer rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but miss two and one more tuberculosis cases, respectively. INTERPRETATION: C-reactive protein reduces the need for further rapid diagnostic tests without compromising sensitivity and has been included in the updated WHO tuberculosis screening guidelines. However, C-reactive protein data were scarce for outpatients on ART, necessitating future research regarding the utility of C-reactive protein in this group. Chest x-ray can be useful in outpatients on ART when combined with W4SS. The WHO-recommended algorithm has suboptimal sensitivity; Xpert for all offers slight sensitivity gains and would have major resource implications. FUNDING: World Health Organization.


Subject(s)
Antibiotics, Antitubercular , HIV Infections , Mycobacterium tuberculosis , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary , Tuberculosis , Adolescent , Adult , Antibiotics, Antitubercular/therapeutic use , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , HIV Infections/complications , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Prospective Studies , Rifampin , Sensitivity and Specificity , Tuberculosis/diagnosis , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/diagnosis , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/drug therapy
3.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(7): e0051421, 2021 06 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486483

ABSTRACT

Accurate SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are critical for COVID-19 serosurveillance. However, previous studies have indicated possible cross-reactivity of these assays, including in areas where malaria is endemic. We tested 213 well-characterized prepandemic samples from Nigeria using two SARS-CoV-2 serological assays, Abbott Architect IgG and Euroimmun NCP IgG assay, both targeting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. To assess antibody binding strength, an avidity assay was performed on these samples and on plasma from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive persons. Thirteen (6.1%) of 212 samples run on the Abbott assay and 38 (17.8%) of 213 run on the Euroimmun assay were positive. Anti-Plasmodium IgG levels were significantly higher among false positives for both Abbott and Euroimmun; no association was found with active Plasmodium falciparum infection. An avidity assay using various concentrations of urea wash in the Euroimmun assay reduced loosely bound IgG: of 37 positive/borderline prepandemic samples, 46%, 86%, 89%, and 97% became negative using 2 M, 4 M, 5 M, and 8 M urea washes, respectively. The wash slightly reduced avidity of antibodies from SARS-CoV-2 patients within 28 days of PCR confirmation; thereafter, avidity increased for all urea concentrations except 8 M. This validation found moderate to substantial cross-reactivity on two SARS-CoV-2 serological assays using samples from a setting where malaria is endemic. A simple urea wash appeared to alleviate issues of cross-reactivity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Malaria , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Malaria/diagnosis , Nigeria , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
4.
Microbiol Spectr ; 9(2): e0068021, 2021 10 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455680

ABSTRACT

Validated assays are essential for reliable serosurveys; however, most SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays have been validated using specimens from China, Europe, or U.S. populations. We evaluated the performance of five commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays to inform their use in serosurveys in Nigeria. Four semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein [NCP] immunoglobulin G [IgG], Euroimmun spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Mologic Omega COVID-19 IgG, Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab) and one chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG) were evaluated. We estimated the analytical performance characteristics using plasma from 100 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients from varied time points post-PCR confirmation and 100 prepandemic samples (50 HIV positive and 50 hepatitis B positive). The Bio-Rad assay failed the manufacturer-specified validation steps. The Euroimmun NCP, Euroimmun spike, and Mologic assays had sensitivities of 73.7%, 74.4%, and 76.9%, respectively, on samples taken 15 to 58 days after PCR confirmation and specificities of 97%, 100%, and 83.8%, respectively. The Abbott assay had 71.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity on the same panel. Parallel or serial algorithms combining two tests did not substantially improve the sensitivity or specificity. Our results showed lower sensitivity and, for one immunoassay, lower specificity compared to the manufacturers' results and other reported validations. Seroprevalence estimates using these assays might need to be interpreted with caution in Nigeria and similar settings. These findings highlight the importance of in-country validations of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays prior to use to ensure that accurate results are available for public health decision-making to control the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa. IMPORTANCE This study used positive and negative sample panels from Nigeria to test the performance of several commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. Using these prepandemic and SARS-CoV-2-positive samples, we found much lower levels of sensitivity in four commercially available assays than most assay manufacturer reports and independent evaluations. The use of these assays with suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in Nigeria or countries with population exposure to similar endemic pathogens could lead to a biased estimate of the seroprevalence, over- or underestimating the true disease prevalence, and limit efforts to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2. It is important to conduct in-country validations of serological SARS-CoV-2 assays prior to their widespread use, especially in countries with limited representation in published assay validations.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Nigeria/epidemiology , Phosphoproteins/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies
6.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(7): e0051421, 2021 06 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276889

ABSTRACT

Accurate SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are critical for COVID-19 serosurveillance. However, previous studies have indicated possible cross-reactivity of these assays, including in areas where malaria is endemic. We tested 213 well-characterized prepandemic samples from Nigeria using two SARS-CoV-2 serological assays, Abbott Architect IgG and Euroimmun NCP IgG assay, both targeting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. To assess antibody binding strength, an avidity assay was performed on these samples and on plasma from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive persons. Thirteen (6.1%) of 212 samples run on the Abbott assay and 38 (17.8%) of 213 run on the Euroimmun assay were positive. Anti-Plasmodium IgG levels were significantly higher among false positives for both Abbott and Euroimmun; no association was found with active Plasmodium falciparum infection. An avidity assay using various concentrations of urea wash in the Euroimmun assay reduced loosely bound IgG: of 37 positive/borderline prepandemic samples, 46%, 86%, 89%, and 97% became negative using 2 M, 4 M, 5 M, and 8 M urea washes, respectively. The wash slightly reduced avidity of antibodies from SARS-CoV-2 patients within 28 days of PCR confirmation; thereafter, avidity increased for all urea concentrations except 8 M. This validation found moderate to substantial cross-reactivity on two SARS-CoV-2 serological assays using samples from a setting where malaria is endemic. A simple urea wash appeared to alleviate issues of cross-reactivity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Malaria , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Malaria/diagnosis , Nigeria , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
7.
J Clin Microbiol ; 59(7): e0051421, 2021 06 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186207

ABSTRACT

Accurate SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are critical for COVID-19 serosurveillance. However, previous studies have indicated possible cross-reactivity of these assays, including in areas where malaria is endemic. We tested 213 well-characterized prepandemic samples from Nigeria using two SARS-CoV-2 serological assays, Abbott Architect IgG and Euroimmun NCP IgG assay, both targeting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. To assess antibody binding strength, an avidity assay was performed on these samples and on plasma from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive persons. Thirteen (6.1%) of 212 samples run on the Abbott assay and 38 (17.8%) of 213 run on the Euroimmun assay were positive. Anti-Plasmodium IgG levels were significantly higher among false positives for both Abbott and Euroimmun; no association was found with active Plasmodium falciparum infection. An avidity assay using various concentrations of urea wash in the Euroimmun assay reduced loosely bound IgG: of 37 positive/borderline prepandemic samples, 46%, 86%, 89%, and 97% became negative using 2 M, 4 M, 5 M, and 8 M urea washes, respectively. The wash slightly reduced avidity of antibodies from SARS-CoV-2 patients within 28 days of PCR confirmation; thereafter, avidity increased for all urea concentrations except 8 M. This validation found moderate to substantial cross-reactivity on two SARS-CoV-2 serological assays using samples from a setting where malaria is endemic. A simple urea wash appeared to alleviate issues of cross-reactivity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Malaria , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Malaria/diagnosis , Nigeria , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
8.
NPJ Digit Med ; 4(1): 17, 2021 Feb 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1072176

ABSTRACT

Previous research has demonstrated that various properties of infectious diseases can be inferred from online search behaviour. In this work we use time series of online search query frequencies to gain insights about the prevalence of COVID-19 in multiple countries. We first develop unsupervised modelling techniques based on associated symptom categories identified by the United Kingdom's National Health Service and Public Health England. We then attempt to minimise an expected bias in these signals caused by public interest-as opposed to infections-using the proportion of news media coverage devoted to COVID-19 as a proxy indicator. Our analysis indicates that models based on online searches precede the reported confirmed cases and deaths by 16.7 (10.2-23.2) and 22.1 (17.4-26.9) days, respectively. We also investigate transfer learning techniques for mapping supervised models from countries where the spread of the disease has progressed extensively to countries that are in earlier phases of their respective epidemic curves. Furthermore, we compare time series of online search activity against confirmed COVID-19 cases or deaths jointly across multiple countries, uncovering interesting querying patterns, including the finding that rarer symptoms are better predictors than common ones. Finally, we show that web searches improve the short-term forecasting accuracy of autoregressive models for COVID-19 deaths. Our work provides evidence that online search data can be used to develop complementary public health surveillance methods to help inform the COVID-19 response in conjunction with more established approaches.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL