ABSTRACT
Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in resource-poor settings remains a considerable challenge. Gold standard nucleic acid tests are expensive and depend on availability of expensive equipment and highly trained laboratory staff. More affordable and easier rapid antigen tests are an attractive alternative. This study assessed field performance of such a test in western Kenya. We conducted a prospective multi-facility field evaluation study of NowCheck COVID-19 Ag-RDT compared to gold standard PCR. Two pairs of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for comparative analysis. With 997 enrolled participants the Ag-RDT had a sensitivity 71.5% (63.2-78.6) and specificity of 97.5% (96.2-98.5) at cycle threshold value <40. Highest sensitivity of 87.7% (77.2-94.5) was observed in samples with cycle threshold values ≤30. NowCheck COVID-19 Ag-RDT performed well at multiple healthcare facilities in an African field setting. Operational specificity and sensitivity were close to WHO-recommended thresholds.
Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Developing Countries , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Female , Humans , Kenya , Male , Middle Aged , Point-of-Care Testing , Prospective Studies , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
We conducted an exploratory analysis of former HIV Prevention Trials Network 052 (HPTN 052) clinical trial participants in 2016 to assess their (1) satisfaction with the HPTN 052 clinical trial care and treatment, and reasons for joining the trial; and (2) perspectives about the post-trial transition to public HIV care centers. Quantitative data showed that, of the 70 survey participants, 94.3% (n = 66) reported being very satisfied with the care and treatment they received while participating in the clinical trial and 51.4% (n = 36) reported they joined the study because they would receive information to improve their own or their partner's health. Qualitative data (five in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions) analysis revealed the following themes: transition experiences; perceived superior clinical trial care; study benefits not offered at public HIV care centers; and the public HIV care centers' indifference to the uninfected partner. For some HPTN 052 participants, transition to HIV care clinics was disappointing. Clinical trial investigators and local Institutional Review Boards should consider the need for safeguards and oversight of post-trial health care for trial participants after the trial ends, especially in resource-constrained settings, to avoid negative health outcomes.
