Feasibility, Uptake, and Results of COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests among Refugees and Migrants in a Pilot Project in North-West Syria.

North-west Syria (NWS) is a conflict-affected and unstable area. Due to its limited health infrastructure, accessing advanced COVID-19 testing services is challenging. COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) have the potential to overcome this barrier. A pilot project was implemented to introduce Ag-RDTs in NWS, aiming to determine the feasibility, uptake, and results of Ag-RDTs and identify facilitators and barriers to testing with Ag-RDTs. A cross-sectional study design involving secondary analysis of data collected during the project was employed. A local non-governmental organization implemented 25,000 Ag-RDTs that were conducted cross-border by trained community health workers. In total, 27,888 eligible individuals were enrolled, 24,956 (89.5%) consented to test, and 121 (0.5%) were COVID-19-positive. The highest positivity was observed among those with severe COVID-19 symptoms (12.7%), with respiratory illnesses (2.5%), enrolled at hospitals in Afrin (2.5%), and healthcare workers (1.9%). A non-random sample of 236 individuals underwent confirmatory RT-PCR testing. Observed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 80.0%, 96.1%, 91.4%, and 90.3%, respectively. Challenges included obtaining informed consent and conducting confirmatory testing. Ag-RDTs represent a feasible screening/diagnostic tool for COVID-19 infections in NWS, with nearly 90% uptake. Embedding Ag-RDTs into COVID-19 testing and screening strategies would be highly beneficial.

Direct Nasal Swab for Rapid Test and Saliva as an Alternative Biological Sample for RT-PCR in COVID-19 Diagnosis.

Accurate and early diagnoses are prerequisites for prompt treatment. For coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is even more crucial. Currently, choice of methods include rapid diagnostic tests and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using samples mostly of respiratory origin and sometimes saliva. We evaluated two rapid diagnostic tests with three specimen types using viral transport medium (VTM) containing naso-oropharyngeal (NOP) swabs, direct nasal and direct nasopharyngeal (NP) samples from 428 prospective patients. We also performed RT-PCR for 428 NOP VTM and 316 saliva samples to compare results. The sensitivity of the SD Biosensor Standard Q COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test kit drastically raised from an average of 65.55% (NOP VTM) to 85.25% (direct nasal samples), while RT-PCR was the gold standard. For the CareStart kit, the sensitivity was almost similar for direct NP swabs; the average was 84.57%. The specificities were ≥95% for both SD Biosensor Standard Q and CareStart COVID-19 Ag tests in all platforms. The kits were also able to detect patients with different variants as well. Alternatively, RT-PCR results from saliva and NOP VTM samples showed high sensitivities of 96.45% and 95.48% with respect to each other as standard. The overall results demonstrated high performance of the rapid tests, indicating the suitability for regular surveillance at clinical facilities when using direct nasal or direct NP samples rather than NOP VTM. Additionally, the analysis also signifies not showed that RT-PCR of saliva can be used as an choice of method to RT-PCR of NOP VTM, providing an easier, non-invasive sample collection method. IMPORTANCE There are several methods for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and the choice of methods depends mostly on the resources and level of sensitivity required by the user and health care providers. Still, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been chosen as the best method using direct naso-oropharyngeal swabs. There are also other methods of fast detection, such as rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which offer result within 15 to 20 min and have become quite popular for self-testing and in the clinical setting. The major drawback of the currently used RT-PCR method is compliance, as it may cause irritation, and patients often refuse to test in such a way. RDTs, although inexpensive, suffer from low sensitivity due to technical issues. In this article, we propose saliva as a noninvasive source for RT-PCR samples and evaluate various specimen types at different times after infection for the best possible output from COVID-19 rapid tests.

Comparison of BinaxNOW and SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR Detection of the Omicron Variant from Matched Anterior Nares Swabs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). In winter 2021 to 2022, the Omicron variant surge made it apparent that although RDTs are less sensitive than quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR), the accessibility, ease of use, and rapid readouts made them a sought after and often sold-out item at local suppliers. Here, we sought to qualify the Abbott BinaxNOW RDT for use in our university testing program as a method to rule in positive or rule out negative individuals quickly at our priority qRT-PCR testing site. To perform this qualification study, we collected additional swabs from individuals attending this site. All swabs were tested using BinaxNOW. Initially as part of a feasibility study, test period 1 (n = 110) samples were stored cold before testing. In test period 2 (n = 209), samples were tested immediately. Combined, 102/319 samples tested severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive via qRT-PCR. All sequenced samples were Omicron (n = 92). We calculated 53.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a 100% positive predictive value, and an 82.2% negative predictive value for BinaxNOW (n = 319). Sensitivity would be improved (75.3%) by changing the qRT-PCR positivity threshold from a threshold cycle (CT) value of 40 to a CT value of 30. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve shows that for qRT-PCR-positive CT values of between 24 and 40, the BinaxNOW test is of limited value diagnostically. Results suggest BinaxNOW could be used in our setting to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with substantial viral load, but a significant fraction of infected individuals would be missed if we used RDTs exclusively to rule out infection. IMPORTANCE Our results suggest BinaxNOW can rule in SARS-CoV-2 infection but would miss infections if RDTs were exclusively used.

A Multicenter Clinical Diagnostic Accuracy Study of SureStatus, an Affordable, WHO Emergency Use-Listed, Rapid, Point-Of-Care Antigen-Detecting Diagnostic Test for SARS-CoV-2.

Access to reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection, is limited throughout the world, due to restricted resources, available infrastructure, and high costs. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) overcome some of these barriers, but independent clinical validations in settings of intended use are scarce. To inform the World Health Organization's (WHO) emergency use listing (EUL) procedure and ensure affordable, high-quality Ag-RDTs, we assessed the performance and ease of use of the SureStatus for SARS-CoV-2. For this prospective, multicenter diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited unvaccinated participants with presumed SARS-CoV-2 infection in India and Germany from December 2020 to March 2021, when the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant was predominantly circulating. Paired swabs were performed for (i) routine clinical RT-PCR testing (sampling was either nasopharyngeal [NP] or combined NP and oropharyngeal [NP/OP]) and (ii) Ag-RDT (sampling was NP). Performance of the Ag-RDT was compared to RT-PCR overall and by predefined subgroups, e.g., cycle threshold (CT) value, symptoms, and days from symptom onset. To understand the usability, a system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. A total of 1,119 participants were included in the analysis, of whom 205 (18.3%) were RT-PCR positive. SureStatus detected 169 out of 205 RT-PCR-positive participants, reporting a sensitivity of 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.6% to 87.1%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.4% to 99.1%). In the first 7 days post-symptom onset, the sensitivity was 90.7% (95% CI: 83.5% to 94.9%), when CT values were low and viral loads were high. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS, 85/100) and considered suitable for point-of-care settings, although quality concerns were raised due to visibly contaminated packaging of swabs included in the test kits. The SureStatus diagnostic test can be considered a reliable test during the first week of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with high sensitivity in combination with excellent usability. IMPORTANCE Our manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study assessed clinical performance in participants presumed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection at three study sites in two countries. We assessed the accuracy overall and in predefined subgroups (CT values and symptom duration). SureStatus performed with high sensitivity. Its sensitivity was particularly high in the first 3 days after symptom onset and when CT values were low (i.e., the viral load was high). The system usability and ease-of-use assessment complements the accuracy assessment of the test and highlights critical factors to facilitate the widespread use of SureStatus in point-of-care settings. The high sensitivity demonstrated by the evaluated Ag-RDT within the first days of symptoms, when most transmission occurs, supports the role of Ag-RDTs for public health-relevant screening. Evidence from this study was used to inform the World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing procedure.

Deep mutational scanning identifies SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid escape mutations of currently available rapid antigen tests.

The effects of mutations in continuously emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 are a major concern for the performance of rapid antigen tests. To evaluate the impact of mutations on 17 antibodies used in 11 commercially available antigen tests with emergency use authorization, we measured antibody binding for all possible Nucleocapsid point mutations using a mammalian surface-display platform and deep mutational scanning. The results provide a complete map of the antibodies' epitopes and their susceptibility to mutational escape. Our data predict no vulnerabilities for detection of mutations found in variants of concern. We confirm this using the commercial tests and sequence-confirmed COVID-19 patient samples. The antibody escape mutational profiles generated here serve as a valuable resource for predicting the performance of rapid antigen tests against past, current, as well as any possible future variants of SARS-CoV-2, establishing the direct clinical and public health utility of our system.

Development of gold nanoparticles-lateral flow test as a novel field diagnostic assay for detecting foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease viruses

Background and Objectives: Rapid diagnosis is a cornerstone for controlling and preventing viral disease outbreaks. The present study is aimed to develop a rapid field diagnostic test based on gold nanoparticles for the detection of lumpy skin diseases (LSD), and foot and mouth diseases (FMD) in animals with high sensitivity and specificity. Materials and Methods: FMD and LSD vaccines were used as a source of viruses' antigens for preparing monoclonal antibodies and conjugated with gold nanoparticles that characterized using various techniques such as UV-visible spectrometry, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for each serotype produced in experimental rats and used to capture antibodies for FMDV and /or LSDV. ELISA was used to screen 469 milk samples and 1165 serum samples from naturally infected cattle, buffaloes, sheep, and goats for validation of the lateral flow test (LFT). LSDV DNA was extracted from 117 blood and skin biopsy samples collected from naturally infected cattle during the 2019 outbreak. Results: The specificity and sensitivity of GNP-LFT were evaluated and compared to Ag-ELISA, Western blot tests (WB), and PCR. A total of 95 FMDV positives out of 469 (20.25%) milk samples and 268 FMDV positives out of 1165 (23.3%) serum samples from natural infected cattle, buffaloes, sheep, and goats examined by ELISA to valid GNPS-LFT Viral LSDV DNA was detected in 60/117 (51.5%) and 31/60 (52.9%). While the GNPS-LFT assay results were 49/117 (41.9%) and 29/60 (48.3%) blood and skin biopsy samples, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the GNP-LFT test were 72% and 82%, respectively. All vesicular fluid and epithelium samples collected from infected animals were identified as positive by the GNP-LFT and Ag-ELISA. Ag-ELISA, on the other hand, was 90% and 100%. While the developed GNPLFT used LSDV polyclonal antibodies were similar to ELISA and IgG-WB with a sensitivity of 72.8% and a specificity of 88.8%, respectively. Conclusion: The GNPS-LFT is a novel immunoassay based on mono or polyclonal antibodies conjugated with gold nanoparticles that provides an accurate, rapid, specific, and sensitive tool for field rapid diagnosis of FMDV and LSDV. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Iranian Journal of Microbiology is the property of Tehran University of Medical Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Analytical Sensitivity of Eight Different SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Tests for Omicron-BA.1 Variant.

The emergence of each novel SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (VOC) requires investigation of its potential impact on the performance of diagnostic tests in use, including antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Although anecdotal reports have been circulating that the newly emerged Omicron-BA.1 variant is in principle detectable by Ag-RDTs, few data on sensitivity are available. We have performed (i) analytical sensitivity testing with cultured virus in eight Ag-RDTs and (ii) retrospective testing in duplicates with clinical samples from vaccinated individuals with Omicron-BA.1 (n = 59) or Delta (n = 54) breakthrough infection on seven Ag-RDTs. Overall, in our analytical study we have found heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs for detecting Omicron-BA.1. When using cultured virus, we observed a trend toward lower endpoint sensitivity for Omicron-BA.1 detection than for earlier circulating SARS-CoV-2 and the other VOCs. In our retrospective study, the detection of Delta and Omicron-BA.1 was assessed in a comparable set of stored clinical samples using seven Ag-RDTs. Four hundred ninety-seven of all 826 tests (60.17%) performed on Omicron-BA.1 samples were positive, compared to 489/756 (64.68%) for Delta samples. In the analytical study, the sensitivity for both Omicron-BA.1 and Delta between the Ag-RDTs was variable. All seven Ag-RDTs showed comparable sensitivities to detect Omicron-BA.1 and Delta in the retrospective study. IMPORTANCE Sensitivity for detecting Omicron-BA.1 shows high heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs, necessitating a careful consideration when using these tests to guide infection prevention measures. Analytical and retrospective testing is a proxy and timely solution to generate rapid performance data, but it is not a replacement for clinical evaluations, which are urgently needed. Biological and technical reasons for detection failure by some Ag-RDTs need to be further investigated.

Highly valued despite burdens: Qualitative implementation research on rapid tests for hospital-based SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 have good reliability and have been repeatedly implemented as part of pandemic response policies, especially for screening in high-risk settings (e.g., hospitals and care homes) where fast recognition of an infection is essential. However, evidence from actual implementation efforts and associated experiences is lacking. We conducted a qualitative study at a large tertiary care hospital in Germany to identify step-by-step processes when implementing RDTs for the screening of incoming patients, as well as stakeholders' implementation experiences. We relied on 30 in-depth interviews with hospital staff (members of the regulatory body, department heads, staff working on the wards, staff training providers on how to perform RDTs, and providers performing RDTs as part of the screening) and patients being screened with RDTs. Despite some initial reservations, RDTs were rapidly accepted and adopted as the best available tool for accessible and reliable screening. Decentralized implementation efforts resulted in different procedures being operationalized across departments. Procedures were continuously refined based on initial experiences (e.g., infrastructural or scheduling constraints), pandemic dynamics (growing infection rates), and changing regulations (e.g., screening of all external personnel). To reduce interdepartmental tension, stakeholders recommended high-level, consistently communicated and enforced regulations. Despite challenges, RDT-based screening for all incoming patients was observed to be feasible and acceptable among implementers and patients, and merits continued consideration in the context of high infection and stagnating vaccination rates.

Timely epidemic monitoring in the presence of reporting delays: anticipating the COVID-19 surge in New York City, September 2020.

BACKGROUND: During a fast-moving epidemic, timely monitoring of case counts and other key indicators of disease spread is critical to an effective public policy response. METHODS: We describe a nonparametric statistical method, originally applied to the reporting of AIDS cases in the 1980s, to estimate the distribution of reporting delays of confirmed COVID-19 cases in New York City during the late summer and early fall of 2020. RESULTS: During August 15-September 26, the estimated mean delay in reporting was 3.3 days, with 87% of cases reported by 5 days from diagnosis. Relying upon the estimated reporting-delay distribution, we projected COVID-19 incidence during the most recent 3 weeks as if each case had instead been reported on the same day that the underlying diagnostic test had been performed. Applying our delay-corrected estimates to case counts reported as of September 26, we projected a surge in new diagnoses that had already occurred but had yet to be reported. Our projections were consistent with counts of confirmed cases subsequently reported by November 7. CONCLUSION: The projected estimate of recently diagnosed cases could have had an impact on timely policy decisions to tighten social distancing measures. While the recent advent of widespread rapid antigen testing has changed the diagnostic testing landscape considerably, delays in public reporting of SARS-CoV-2 case counts remain an important barrier to effective public health policy.

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen-Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Omicron and Other Variants of Concern.

The SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDTs) is an easy-to-use diagnostic tool to identify the contagious individuals and reduce the new infections. However, to be effective, Ag-RDTs require the detection of distinct variants of concern (VOC) with high analytical sensitivity. Here, we found that the VOC diverge at the nucleocapsid protein used by four commercial Ag-RDTs for the viral detection. Relative to the original D614G variant, there was a 10-fold loss of detection for the Delta and Alpha variants in certain Ag-RDTs, a reduction above the threshold required to isolate the viable virus. However, Beta and Omicron variants did not lose the detection capacity. As the new VOC arise, successful contact tracing requires continuous monitoring of Ag-RDTs performance.

Rapid comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care antigen tests.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) to rapidly identify poor-performing products. METHODS: We present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium, and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison. RESULTS: Among 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads (9.8 × 108 to 1.8 × 105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample (1.6 × 106 copies/ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample (1.8 × 105 copies/ml). In the low-range of analytical sensitivity, we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample (2.7 × 107 copies/ml). Comparison with published data supports our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT widely offered, which did not reliably recognize the sample with the highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with 9.8 × 108 copies/ml) leading to serious doubts about its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. CONCLUSION: The results show that the rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.

Real World Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Various Clinical Settings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 as decision support tool in various hospital-based clinical settings. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and Healthcare workers (HCW). SETTING: A large tertiary teaching medical center serving as a major COVID-19 hospitalizing facility. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Ag-RDTs' performance was assessed in three clinical settings: 1. Symptomatic patients and HCW presenting at the Emergency Departments 2. Asymptomatic patients screened upon hospitalization 3. HCW of all sectors tested at the HCW clinic following exposure. RESULTS: We obtained 5172 samples from 4595 individuals, who had both Ag-RDT and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) results available. Of these, 485 samples were positive by qRT-PCR. The positive percent agreement (PPA) of Ag-RDT was greater for lower cycle threshold (Ct) values, reaching 93% in cases where Ct-value was <25 and 85% where Ct-value was <30. PPA was similar between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. We observed a significant correlation between Ct-value and time from infection onset (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ag-RDT are highly sensitive to the infectious stage of COVID-19 manifested by either high viral load (lower Ct) or proximity to infection, whether patient is symptomatic or asymptomatic. Thus, this simple-to-use and inexpensive detection method can be used as a decision support tool in various in-hospital clinical settings, assisting patient flow and maintaining sufficient hospital staffing.

Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers. METHODS: Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. FINDINGS: 7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation. FUNDING: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.

Diagnostic Accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Testing in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Children in the Clinical Setting.

Antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used in children despite the lack of data. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio-COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (P-RDT) in children. Symptomatic and asymptomatic participants 0 to 16 years old had two nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) for both reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) and P-RDT. A total of 822 participants completed the study, of which 533 (64.9%) were symptomatic. Among the 119 (14.5%) RT-PCR-positive patients, the P-RDT sensitivity was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.74). Mean viral load (VL) was higher among P-RDT-positive patients than negative ones (P < 0.001). Sensitivity was 0.91 in specimens with VL of >1.0E6 IU/ml (95% CI 0.83 to 0.99) and decreased to 0.75 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.83) for specimens >1.0E3 IU/ml. Among symptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.82), which peaked at 1.00 at 2 days post-onset of symptoms (DPOS) (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), then decreased to 0.56 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.88) at 5 DPOS. There was a trend toward lower P-RDT sensitivity in symptomatic children <12 years (0.62 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.78]) versus ≥12 years (0.80 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.91]; P = 0.09). In asymptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.43 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.61). Specificity was 1.00 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00). The overall 73% and 43% sensitivities of P-RDT in symptomatic and asymptomatic children, respectively, was below the 80% cutoff recommended by the World Health Organization. We observed a correlation between VL and P-RDT sensitivity, as well as variation of sensitivity according to DPOS, a major determinant of VL. These data highlight the limitations of RDTs in children, with the potential exception in early symptomatic children ≥12yrs.

Hepatitis C Diagnosis: Simplified Solutions, Predictive Barriers, and Future Promises.

The simplification of current hepatitis C diagnostic algorithms and the emergence of digital diagnostic devices will be very crucial to achieving the WHO's set goals of hepatitis C diagnosis (i.e., 90%) by 2030. From the last decade, hepatitis C diagnosis has been revolutionized by the advent and approval of state-of-the-art HCV diagnostic platforms which have been efficiently implemented in high-risk HCV populations in developed nations as well as in some low-to-middle income countries (LMICs) to identify millions of undiagnosed hepatitis C-infected individuals. Point-of-care (POC) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs; POC-RDTs), RNA reflex testing, hepatitis C self-test assays, and dried blood spot (DBS) sample analysis have been proven their diagnostic worth in real-world clinical experiences both at centralized and decentralized diagnostic settings, in mass hepatitis C screening campaigns, and hard-to-reach aboriginal hepatitis C populations in remote areas. The present review article overviews the significance of current and emerging hepatitis C diagnostic packages to subvert the public health care burden of this 'silent epidemic' worldwide. We also highlight the challenges that remain to be met about the affordability, accessibility, and health system-related barriers to overcome while modulating the hepatitis C care cascade to adopt a 'test and treat' strategy for every hepatitis C-affected individual. We also elaborate some key measures and strategies in terms of policy and progress to be part of hepatitis C care plans to effectively link diagnosis to care cascade for rapid treatment uptake and, consequently, hepatitis C cure.

pyPOCQuant - A tool to automatically quantify Point-Of-Care Tests from images.

Lateral flow Point-Of-Care Tests (POCTs) are a valuable tool for rapidly detecting pathogens and the associated immune response in humans and animals. In the context of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, they offer rapid on-site diagnostics and can relieve centralized laboratory testing sites, thus freeing resources that can be focused on especially vulnerable groups. However, visual interpretation of the POCT test lines is subjective, error prone and only qualitative. Here we present pyPOCQuant, an open-source tool implemented in Python 3 that can robustly and reproducibly analyze POCTs from digital images and return an unbiased and quantitative measurement of the POCT test lines.

Serologic response to SARS-CoV-2 in an African population.

Official case counts suggest Africa has not seen the expected burden of COVID-19 as predicted by international health agencies, and the proportion of asymptomatic patients, disease severity, and mortality burden differ significantly in Africa from what has been observed elsewhere. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 was extremely limited early in the pandemic and likely led to under-reporting of cases leaving important gaps in our understanding of transmission and disease characteristics in the African context. SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence and serologic response data could help quantify the burden of COVID-19 disease in Africa to address this knowledge gap and guide future outbreak response, adapted to the local context. However, such data are widely lacking in Africa. We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence survey among 1,192 individuals seeking COVID-19 screening and testing in central Cameroon using the Innovita antibody-based rapid diagnostic. Overall immunoglobulin prevalence was 32%, IgM prevalence was 20%, and IgG prevalence was 24%. IgM positivity gradually increased, peaking around symptom day 20. IgG positivity was similar, gradually increasing over the first 10 days of symptoms, then increasing rapidly to 30 days and beyond. These findings highlight the importance of diagnostic testing and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Cameroon, which likely resulted in artificially low case counts. Rapid antibody tests are a useful diagnostic modality for seroprevalence surveys and infection diagnosis starting 5-7 days after symptom onset. These results represent the first step towards better understanding the SARS-CoV-2 immunological response in African populations.