Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2021 Jun 18;59(7):e0083721. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00837-21.
We assessed the performance of the CoronaCHEK lateral flow assay on samples from Uganda and Baltimore to determine the impact of geographic origin on assay performance. Plasma samples from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR-positive individuals (Uganda, 78 samples from 78 individuals, and Baltimore, 266 samples from 38 individuals) and from prepandemic individuals (Uganda, 1,077, and Baltimore, 532) were evaluated. Prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated to identify factors associated with a false-positive test. After the first positive PCR in Ugandan samples, the sensitivity was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24,68) at 0 to 7 days, 79% (95% CI, 64 to 91) at 8 to 14 days, and 76% (95% CI, 50 to 93) at >15 days. In samples from Baltimore, sensitivity was 39% (95% CI, 30 to 49) at 0 to 7 days, 86% (95% CI, 79 to 92) at 8 to 14 days, and 100% (95% CI, 89 to 100) at 15 days after positive PCR. The specificity of 96.5% (95% CI, 97.5 to 95.2) in Ugandan samples was significantly lower than that in samples from Baltimore, 99.3% (95% CI, 98.1 to 99.8; < 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 had a fever more than a month prior to sample acquisition (PR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.12 to 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 侧向流动检测试剂盒在来自乌干达和巴尔的摩的样本中的表现,以确定地理来源对检测性能的影响。评估了严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2 (SARS-CoV-2) PCR 阳性个体(乌干达 78 份样本来自 78 个人,巴尔的摩 266 份样本来自 38 个人)和大流行前个体(乌干达 1077 份,巴尔的摩 532 份)的血浆样本。计算了患病率比(PR)以确定与假阳性检测相关的因素。在乌干达样本的首次阳性 PCR 后,0 至 7 天的敏感性为 45%(95%置信区间 [CI],24,68),8 至 14 天为 79%(95% CI,64 至 91),>15 天为 76%(95% CI,50 至 93)。在来自巴尔的摩的样本中,0 至 7 天的敏感性为 39%(95% CI,30 至 49),8 至 14 天为 86%(95% CI,79 至 92),15 天后为 100%(95% CI,89 至 100)PCR 阳性。乌干达样本的特异性为 96.5%(95% CI,97.5 至 95.2),明显低于巴尔的摩样本的 99.3%(95% CI,98.1 至 99.8;<0.01)。在乌干达样本中,假阳性结果的个体更可能是男性(PR,2.04;95% CI,1.03,3.69)或在样本采集前一个月以上有发热史的个体(PR,2.87;95% CI,1.12 至 7.35)。CoronaCHEK 在来自乌干达和巴尔的摩的样本中的敏感性相似。乌干达样本的特异性明显低于巴尔的摩样本。乌干达样本中的假阳性结果似乎与近期发热病史相关,这可能表明来自东非的个体存在交叉反应性免疫反应。