Search

Background: Rapid IgM/IgG antibody tests were largely used in lieu of RT-PCR tests as part of COVID-19 public health response activities in Lima, Peru. To assess their utility, we explored the relationship between the time since onset of several COVID-19-related symptoms and the sensitivity of a rapid combined IgM/IgG antibody test., Methods: We collected data from a community sample of individuals (n = 492) who received concurrent RT-PCR and rapid IgM/IgG antibody testing between May 2020 and March 2021. We estimated the sensitivity of the antibody test, against the RT-PCR test, by weeks since symptom onset via segmented regression analysis., Results: The overall sensitivity of the rapid IgM/IgG antibody test was 46.7% (95% CI, 42.4-51.2%). Among 372 (75.6%) participants who reported COVID-19-related symptoms, sensitivity increased from 30.4% (95% CI, 24.7-36.6%) in week 1 after symptom onset to 83.3% (95% CI, 41.6-98.4%) in week 4. The test sensitivity increased by 31.9% (95% CI, 24.8-39.0%) per week until week 2 to 3, then decreased by - 6.0% (95% CI, - 25.7-13.7%) per week thereafter., Conclusion: Rapid antibody tests are a poor substitute for RT-PCR testing, regardless of presenting symptoms. This highlights the need for future pandemic planning to include timely and equitable access to gold-standard diagnostics, treatment, and vaccination., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Widely available and reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential for the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated the diagnostic performance of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) performed on saliva and the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q antigen test performed on nasopharyngeal swab compared to the reference standard, nasopharyngeal swab (NP) RT-PCR. We enrolled participants living and/or seeking care in health facilities in North Lima, Peru from November 2020 to January 2021. Consenting participants underwent same-day RT-PCR on both saliva and nasopharyngeal swab specimens, antigen testing on a nasopharyngeal swab specimen, pulse oximetry, and standardized symptom assessment. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for the nasopharyngeal antigen and saliva RT-PCR compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of 896 participants analyzed, 567 (63.3%) had acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19. The overall sensitivity and specificity of saliva RT-PCR were 85.8% and 98.1%, respectively. Among participants with and without acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19, saliva sensitivity was 87.3% and 37.5%, respectively. Saliva sensitivity was 97.4% and 56.0% among participants with cycle threshold ( C T ) values of ≤30 and >30 on nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of nasopharyngeal antigen were 73.2% and 99.4%, respectively. The sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal antigen test was 75.1% and 12.5% among participants with and without acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19, and 91.2% and 26.7% among participants with C T values of ≤30 and >30 on nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, respectively. Saliva RT-PCR achieved the WHO-recommended threshold of >80% for sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, while the SD Biosensor nasopharyngeal antigen test did not. IMPORTANCE In this diagnostic validation study of 896 participants in Peru, saliva reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) had >80% sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among all-comers and symptomatic individuals, while the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q antigen test performed on nasopharyngeal swab had <80% sensitivity, except for participants whose same-day nasopharyngeal RT-PCR results showed cycle threshold values of <30, consistent with a high viral load in the nasopharynx. The specificity was high for both tests. Our results demonstrate that saliva sampling could serve as an alternative noninvasive technique for RT-PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The role of nasopharyngeal antigen testing is more limited; when community transmission is low, it may be used for mass screenings among asymptomatic individuals with high testing frequency. Among symptomatic individuals, the nasopharyngeal antigen test may be relied upon for 4 to 8 days after symptom onset, or in those likely to have high viral load, whereupon it showed >80% sensitivity.

We report severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody positivity among market and city bus depot workers in Lima, Peru. Among 1285 vendors from 8 markets, prevalence ranged from 27% to 73%. Among 488 workers from 3 city bus depots, prevalence ranged from 11% to 47%. Self-reported symptoms were infrequent., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This cohort study examines the alignment of vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 risk in Massachusetts by creating and applying a vaccination-to-infection risk ratio., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Dryden-Peterson reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Velásquez reported grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the conduct of the study and grants from the Unitaid endTB-Q trial outside the submitted work. Dr Gandhi reported personal fees from Merck and Gilead for serving on scientific advisory boards outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright 2021 Dryden-Peterson S et al. JAMA Health Forum.)

Background Few studies have examined the burden of postacute sequelae of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (PASC) in low- and middle-income countries. We sought to characterize PASC with self-reported questionnaires and clinical examinations of end-organ function in Lima, Peru. Methods From January to July 2021, we recruited participants at least 8 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis from a case registry in Lima, Peru. We evaluated participants for PASC with questionnaires, neuropsychiatric evaluations, chest X-ray, spirometry, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram. We used multivariable models to identify risk factors for PASC. Results We assessed 989 participants for PASC at a median 4.7 months after diagnosis. Clinically significant respiratory symptoms were reported by 68.3% of participants, particularly those who had been severely ill during acute COVID-19, and were associated with cardiac findings of ventricular hypertrophy or dilation on echocardiogram. Neuropsychiatric questionnaires were consistent with depression in 20.7% and cognitive impairment in 8.0%. Female sex and older age were associated with increased risk of respiratory (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.69–3.31] and aOR, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00–1.03], respectively) and neuropsychiatric sequelae (aOR, 2.99 [95% CI, 2.16–4.18] and aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01–1.03], respectively). Conclusions COVID-19 survivors in Lima, Peru, experienced frequent postacute respiratory symptoms and depression, particularly among older and female participants. Clinical examinations highlighted the need for cardiopulmonary rehabilitation among persons with severe COVID-19; psychosocial support may be required among all COVID-19 survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tuberculosis, like COVID-19, is most often a pulmonary disease. The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted tuberculosis services in myriad ways: health facility closures, lockdowns, travel bans, overwhelmed healthcare systems, restricted export of antituberculous drugs, etc. The effects of the shared risk on outcomes of the two diseases is not known, particularly for the first year of the pandemic, during the period before COVID-19 vaccines became widely available. Objective: We embarked on a systematic review to elucidate the consequences of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes during the pre-vaccination period of the pandemic. Methods: The systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO. We conducted an initial search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, WHO coronavirus database, medRxiv, bioRxiv, preprints.org, and Google Scholar using terms relating to COVID-19 and tuberculosis. We selected cohort and case–control studies for extraction and assessed quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results and Conclusion: We identified 2108 unique abstracts published between December 2019 and January 2021. We extracted data from 18 studies from 8 countries. A total of 650,317 persons had a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 4179 had a diagnosis of current or prior tuberculosis. We explored links between tuberculosis and COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and other adverse outcomes. Nine studies reported on mortality and 13 on other adverse outcomes; results on the association between tuberculosis and COVID-19 mortality/adverse outcomes were heterogenous. Tuberculosis outcomes were not fully available in any studies, due to short follow-up (maximum of 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis), so the effects of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes could not be assessed. Much of the rapid influx of literature on tuberculosis and COVID-19 during this period was published on preprint servers, and therefore not peer-reviewed. It offered limited examination of the effect of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and even less on the effect of COVID-19 on tuberculosis treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]