Comparison of commercially available, rapid, point-of-care C-reactive protein assays among children with febrile illness in southwestern Uganda.

In Uganda, children with febrile illness are often treated with antibiotics even though most have self-limiting, likely viral, infections. C-reactive protein (CRP) measurement can help identify those who are more likely to have a bacterial infection and therefore need antibiotic treatment. Implementation of a CRP rapid diagnostic test (RDT) at the point-of-care in resource-constrained settings with minimal laboratory infrastructure could reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. In this study, we evaluated the performance of three semi-quantitative CRP RDTs (Actim, BTNX, Duo) against a reference CRP assay requiring an electrically powered analyzer (Afinion). While both tests demonstrated substantial agreement with Afinion, Actim had slightly higher agreement than BTNX. The sensitivity was higher for the BTNX test, whereas the Actim test had a higher specificity, at cut-offs of 40 mg/L and 80 mg/L. At a cut-off of 20 mg/L, Duo demonstrated substantial agreement with the Afinion test as well. Our results demonstrate the reliability of CRP RDTs when compared to a reference standard. CRP RDTs without the need for a laboratory-based analyzer are promising tools for optimizing antibiotic use in low-resource settings.

Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Central North Carolina: Accounting for Outcome Misclassification in Complex Sample Designs.

BACKGROUND: Population-based seroprevalence studies are crucial to understand community transmission of COVID-19 and guide responses to the pandemic. Seroprevalence is typically measured from diagnostic tests with imperfect sensitivity and specificity. Failing to account for measurement error can lead to biased estimates of seroprevalence. Methods to adjust seroprevalence estimates for the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test have largely focused on estimation in the context of convenience sampling. Many existing methods are inappropriate when data are collected using a complex sample design. METHODS: We present methods for seroprevalence point estimation and confidence interval construction that account for imperfect test performance for use with complex sample data. We apply these methods to data from the Chatham County COVID-19 Cohort (C4), a longitudinal seroprevalence study conducted in central North Carolina. Using simulations, we evaluate bias and confidence interval coverage for the proposed estimator compared with a standard estimator under a stratified, three-stage cluster sample design. RESULTS: We obtained estimates of seroprevalence and corresponding confidence intervals for the C4 study. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence increased rapidly from 10.4% in January to 95.6% in July 2021 in Chatham County, North Carolina. In simulation, the proposed estimator demonstrates desirable confidence interval coverage and minimal bias under a wide range of scenarios. CONCLUSION: We propose a straightforward method for producing valid estimates and confidence intervals when data are based on a complex sample design. The method can be applied to estimate the prevalence of other infections when estimates of test sensitivity and specificity are available.

Comparison of capillary blood self-collection using the Tasso-SST device with venous phlebotomy for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement.

Measuring seroprevalence over time is a valuable epidemiological tool for improving our understanding of COVID-19 immunity. Due to the large number of collections required for population surveillance as well as concerns about potential infection risk to the collectors, self-collection approaches are being increasingly pursued. To advance this methodology, we collected paired venous and capillary blood samples by routine phlebotomy and Tasso-SST device respectively from 26 participants and measured total immunoglobulin (Ig) and IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on both specimens. Qualitatively, no discrepancies were noted in binary results between Tasso and venipuncture-derived plasma. Furthermore, in vaccinated participants, correlation between Tasso and venous total Ig and IgG specific antibody quantitative levels was high (Total Ig: Spearman ρ = 0.72, 95% CI (0.39,0.90); IgG: Spearman ρ = 0.85, 95% CI (0.54, 0.96)). Our results support the use of Tasso at-home collection devices for antibody testing.

Comparison of Capillary Blood Self-Collection using the Tasso-SST Device with Venous Phlebotomy for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Measurement.

Measuring seroprevalence over time is a valuable epidemiological tool for improving our understanding of COVID-19 immunity. Due to the large number of collections required for population surveillance as well as concerns about potential infection risk to the collectors, self-collection approaches are being increasingly pursued. To advance this methodology, we collected paired venous and capillary blood samples by routine phlebotomy and Tasso-SST device respectively from 26 participants and measured total immunoglobulin (Ig) and IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on both specimens. Qualitatively, no discrepancies were noted in binary results between Tasso and venipuncture-derived plasma. Furthermore, in vaccinated participants, correlation between Tasso and venous total Ig and IgG specific antibody quantitative levels was high (Total Ig: ρ = 0.72, 95% CI (0.39- 0.90); IgG: ρ = 0.85, 95% CI (0.54, 0.96)). Our results support the use of Tasso at-home collection devices for antibody testing.

Transmission prevention behaviors in US households with SARS-CoV-2 cases in 2020.

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission frequently occurs within households, yet few studies describe which household contacts and household units are most likely to engage in transmission-interrupting behaviors. Methods: We analyzed a COVID-19 prospective household transmission cohort in North Carolina (April to October 2020) to quantify changes in physical distancing behaviors among household contacts over 14 days. We evaluated which household contacts were most likely to ever mask at home and to ever share a bedroom with the index case between days 7-14. Results: In the presence of a household COVID-19 infection, 24% of household contacts reported ever masking at home during the week before study entry. Masking in the home between days 7-14 was reported by 26% of household contacts and was more likely for participants who observed their household index case wearing a mask. Participants of color and participants in high-density households were more likely to mask at home. After adjusting for race/ethnicity, living density was not as clearly associated with masking. Symptomatic household contacts were more likely to share a bedroom with the index case. Working individuals and those with comorbidities avoided sharing a bedroom with the index case. Discussion: In-home masking during household exposure to COVID-19 was infrequent in 2020. In light of the ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, these findings underscore a need for health campaigns to increase the feasibility and social desirability of in-home masking among exposed household members. Joint messaging on social responsibility and prevention of breakthrough infections, reinfections, and long COVID-19 may help motivate transmission-interruption behaviors.

Transmission prevention behaviors in US households with SARS-CoV-2 cases in 2020.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 transmission frequently occurs within households, yet few studies describe which household contacts and household units are most likely to engage in transmission-interrupting behaviors. Methods: We analyzed a COVID-19 prospective household transmission cohort in North Carolina (April-Oct 2020) to quantify changes in physical distancing behaviors among household contacts over 14 days. We evaluated which household contacts were most likely to ever mask at home and to ever share a bedroom with the index case between Days 7-14. Results: In the presence of a household COVID-19 infection, 24% of household contacts reported ever masking at home during the week before study entry. Masking in the home between Days 7-14 was reported by 26% of household contacts, and was more likely for participants who observed their household index case wearing a mask. Participants of color and participants in high-density households were more likely to mask at home. After adjusting for race/ethnicity, living density was not as clearly associated with masking. Symptomatic household contacts were more likely to share a bedroom with the index case. Working individuals and those with comorbidities avoided sharing a bedroom with the index case. Conclusion: In-home masking during household exposure to COVID-19 was infrequent in 2020. In light of ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, these findings underscore a need for health campaigns to increase the feasibility and social desirability of in-home masking among exposed household members. Joint messaging on social responsibility and prevention of breakthrough infections, reinfections, and long COVID-19 may help motivate transmission-interruption behaviors.