Baker Owen R, Grabowski M Kate, Galiwango Ronald M, Nalumansi Aminah, Serwanga Jennifer, Clarke William, Hsieh Yu-Hsiang, Rothman Richard E, Fernandez Reinaldo E, Serwadda David, Kagaayi Joseph, Lutalo Tom, Reynolds Steven J, Kaleebu Pontiano, Quinn Thomas C, Laeyendecker Oliver
Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
medRxiv. 2021 Apr 19:2021.04.12.21255284. doi: 10.1101/2021.04.12.21255284.
We assessed the performance of CoronaCHEK lateral flow assay on samples from Uganda and Baltimore to determine the impact of geographic origin on assay performance.
Serum samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR+ individuals (Uganda: 78 samples from 78 individuals and Baltimore: 266 samples from 38 individuals) and from pre-pandemic individuals (Uganda 1077 and Baltimore 532) were evaluated. Prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated to identify factors associated with a false-positive test.
After first positive PCR in Ugandan samples the sensitivity was: 45% (95% CI 24,68) at 0-7 days; 79% (95%CI 64,91) 8-14 days; and 76% (95%CI 50,93) >15 days. In samples from Baltimore, sensitivity was: 39% (95% CI 30, 49) 0-7 days; 86% (95% CI 79,92) 8-14 days; and 100% (95% CI 89,100) 15 days post positive PCR. The specificity of 96.5% (95% CI 97.5,95.2) in Ugandan samples was significantly lower than samples from Baltimore 99.3% (95% CI 98.1,99.8), p<0.01. In Ugandan samples, individuals with a false positive result were more likely to be male (PR 2.04, 95% CI 1.03,3.69) or individuals who had a fever more than a month prior to sample acquisition (PR 2.87, 95% CI 1.12,7.35).
Sensitivity of the CoronaCHEK was similar in samples from Uganda and Baltimore. The specificity was significantly lower in Ugandan samples than in Baltimore samples. False positive results in Ugandan samples appear to correlate with a recent history of a febrile illness, potentially indicative of a cross-reactive immune response in individuals from East Africa.
我们评估了CoronaCHEK侧向流动检测法在乌干达和巴尔的摩样本上的性能,以确定地理来源对检测性能的影响。
对来自新冠病毒PCR检测呈阳性个体(乌干达:78名个体的78份样本;巴尔的摩:38名个体的266份样本)以及疫情前个体(乌干达1077份样本,巴尔的摩532份样本)的血清样本进行了评估。计算患病率比(PR)以确定与假阳性检测相关的因素。
在乌干达样本首次PCR检测呈阳性后,0至7天的灵敏度为45%(95%置信区间24,68);8至14天为79%(95%置信区间64,91);超过15天为76%(95%置信区间50,93)。在巴尔的摩的样本中,0至7天的灵敏度为39%(95%置信区间30,49);8至14天为86%(95%置信区间79,92);PCR检测呈阳性后15天为100%(95%置信区间89,100)。乌干达样本的特异性为96.5%(95%置信区间97.5,95.2),显著低于巴尔的摩样本的99.3%(95%置信区间98.1,99.8),p<0.01。在乌干达样本中,假阳性结果的个体更可能是男性(患病率比2.04,95%置信区间1.03,3.69)或在采集样本前一个多月发烧的个体(患病率比2.87,95%置信区间1.12,7.35)。
CoronaCHEK在乌干达和巴尔的摩样本中的灵敏度相似。乌干达样本的特异性显著低于巴尔的摩样本。乌干达样本中的假阳性结果似乎与近期发热病史相关,这可能表明东非个体存在交叉反应性免疫应答。