BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is widely acknowledged as a global problem, yet in many parts of the world its magnitude is still not well understood. This review, using a public health focused approach, aimed to understand and describe the current status of AMR in Africa in relation to common causes of infections and drugs recommended in WHO treatment guidelines.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and other relevant databases were searched for recent articles (2013–2016) in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Article retrieval and screening were done using a structured search string and strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. Median and interquartile ranges of percent resistance were calculated for each antibiotic-bacterium combination.ResultsAMR data was not available for 42.6% of the countries in the African continent. A total of 144 articles were included in the final analysis. 13 Gram negative and 5 Gram positive bacteria were tested against 37 different antibiotics. Penicillin resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae was reported in 14/144studies (median resistance (MR): 26.7%). Further 18/53 (34.0%) of Haemophilus influenza isolates were resistant to amoxicillin. MR of Escherichia coli to amoxicillin, trimethoprim and gentamicin was 88.1%, 80.7% and 29.8% respectively. Ciprofloxacin resistance in Salmonella Typhi was rare. No documented ceftriaxone resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae was reported, while the MR for quinolone was 37.5%. Carbapenem resistance was common in Acinetobacter spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa but uncommon in Enterobacteriaceae.ConclusionOur review highlights three important findings. First, recent AMR data is not available for more than 40% of the countries. Second, the level of resistance to commonly prescribed antibiotics was significant. Third, the quality of microbiological data is of serious concern. Our findings underline that to conserve our current arsenal of antibiotics it is imperative to address the gaps in AMR diagnostic standardization and reporting and use available information to optimize treatment guidelines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-017-2713-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting. Conclusions In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Summary Background Most tuberculosis-related deaths in people with HIV could be prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment. The only commercially available tuberculosis point-of-care test (Alere Determine TB LAM Ag [AlereLAM]) has suboptimal sensitivity, which restricts its use in clinical practice. The novel Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) assay has been developed to improve the sensitivity of AlereLAM. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the FujiLAM assay for the detection of tuberculosis in hospital inpatients with HIV compared with the AlereLAM assay. Methods For this diagnostic accuracy study, we assessed biobanked urine samples obtained from the FIND Specimen Bank and the University of Cape Town Biobank, which had been collected from hospital inpatients (aged ≥18 years) with HIV during three independent prospective cohort studies done at two South African hospitals. Urine samples were tested using FujiLAM and AlereLAM assays. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. The primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM compared with AlereLAM, against microbiological and composite reference standards (including clinical diagnoses). Findings Between April 18, 2018, and May 3, 2018, urine samples from 968 hospital inpatients with HIV were evaluated. The prevalence of microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis was 62% and the median CD4 count was 86 cells per μL. Using the microbiological reference standard, the estimated sensitivity of FujiLAM was 70·4% (95% CI 53·0 to 83·1) compared with 42·3% (31·7 to 51·8) for AlereLAM (difference 28·1%) and the estimated specificity of FujiLAM was 90·8% (86·0 to 94·4) and 95·0% (87·7–98·8) for AlereLAM (difference −4·2%). Against the composite reference standard, the specificity of both assays was higher (95·7% [92·0 to 98·0] for FujiLAM vs 98·2% [95·7 to 99·6] for AlereLAM; difference −2·5%), but the sensitivity of both assays was lower (64·9% [50·1 to 76·7] for FujiLAM vs 38·2% [28·1 to 47·3] for AlereLAM; difference 26·7%). Interpretation In comparison to AlereLAM, FujiLAM offers superior diagnostic sensitivity, while maintaining specificity, and could transform rapid point-of-care tuberculosis diagnosis for hospital inpatients with HIV. The applicability of FujiLAM for settings of intended use requires prospective assessment. Funding Global Health Innovative Technology Fund, UK Department for International Development, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellcome Trust, Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa, and South African Medical Research Council.

Background Diagnosis of chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection requires both a positive HCV antibody screen and confirmatory nucleic acid test (NAT). HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) is a potential alternative to NAT. Purpose This systematic review evaluated the accuracy of diagnosis of active HCV infection among adults and children for five HCVcAg tests compared to NAT. Data Sources EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane from 1990 through March 31, 2016. Study Selection Cohort, cross-sectional, and randomized controlled trials were included without language restriction Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed quality using an adapted Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Data Synthesis 44 studies evaluated 5 index tests. Studies for the ARCHITECT had the highest quality, while those for Ortho ELISA were the lowest. From bivariate analyses, the sensitivity and specificity with 95% CI were: ARCHITECT 93.4% (90.1, 96.4) and 98.8% (97.4, 99.5), Ortho ELISA 93.2% (81.6, 97.7) and 99.2% (87.9, 100), and Hunan Jynda 59.5% (46.0, 71.7) and 82.9% (58.6, 94.3). Insufficient data were available for a meta-analysis for Lumipulse and Lumispot. In three quantitative studies using ARCHITECT, HCVcAg correlated closely with HCV RNA above 3000 IU/mL. Limitations There was insufficient data on covariates such as HIV or HBV status for sub-group analyses. Few studies reported genotypes of isolates and there were scant data for genotypes 4, 5, and 6. Most studies were conducted in high resource settings within reference laboratories. Conclusions HCVcAg assays with signal amplification have high sensitivity, high specificity, and good correlation with HCV RNA above 3000 IU/mL. HCVcAg assays have the potential to replace NAT in high HCV prevalence settings.

BackgroundDiagnosis and treatment are central elements of strategies to control Trypanosoma brucei gambiense human African trypanosomiasis (HAT). Serological screening is a key entry point in diagnostic algorithms. The Card Agglutination Test for Trypanosomiasis (CATT) has been the most widely used screening test for decades, despite a number of practical limitations that were partially addressed by the introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). However, current RDTs are manufactured using native antigens, which are challenging to produce.Methodology/Principal findingsThe objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new RDT developed using recombinant antigens (SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0), in comparison with an RDT produced using native antigens (SD BIOLINE HAT) and CATT. A total of 57,632 individuals were screened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, either passively at 10 health centres, or actively by 5 mobile teams, and 260 HAT cases were confirmed by parasitology. The highest sensitivity was achieved with the SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0 (71.2%), followed by CATT (62.5%) and the SD BIOLINE HAT (59.0%). The most specific test was CATT (99.2%), while the specificity of the SD BIOLINE HAT and SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0 were 98.9% and 98.1%, respectively. Sensitivity of the tests was lower than previously reported, as they identified cases from partially overlapping sub-populations. All three tests were significantly more sensitive in passive than in active screening. Combining two or three tests resulted in a markedly increased sensitivity: When the SD BIOLINE HAT was combined with the SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0, sensitivity reached 98.4% in passive and 83.0% in active screening.Conclusions/SignificanceThe recombinant antigen-based RDT was more sensitive than, and as specific as, the SD BIOLINE HAT. It was as sensitive as, but slightly less specific than CATT. While the practicality and cost-effectiveness of algorithms including several screening tests would need to be investigated, using two or more tests appears to enhance sensitivity of diagnostic algorithms, although some decrease in specificity is observed as well.