HIV self-testing (HIVST) has been introduced to supplement existing HIV testing methods to increase the number of people knowing their HIV status. Various HIVST kits have been developed; however, in many countries, their entry into the market is contingent on either being listed as World Health Organization (WHO) prequalified diagnostics/products or being approved by that country’s health device regulator or both. In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated the usability, sensitivity and specificity of HIVSTs, as directed by the WHO prequalification literature. A boxed, sealed HIVST kit was provided to enrolled lay users with no further instruction, who then performed the test under observation. For each HIVST, a product-specific semi-structured checklist was used to calculate a usability index, while the sensitivity and specificity of each HIVST were calculated by comparing the HIVST results to the ‘gold standard’ – fourth-generation ELISA laboratory blood test. The average usability index was 97.1% (95.9–97.8%), while the average sensitivity and specificity were 98.2% (96.8–99.3%) and 99.8% (99.4–100.0%), respectively. We also diagnosed 507 (15.1%) HIV-positive participants from the general population. The average usability index, sensitivity and specificity were all comparatively high, and these results corroborate previous usability and performance studies from other regions. These results suggest HIVSTs are appropriate for the South African market and can assist manufacturers with readying their devices for final WHO prequalification evaluation.

Only 20% of people with hepatitis C virus (HCV) know their status. In low-income countries diagnosis is under 10%. Self-testing for HCV antibodies (HCVST) could expand the coverage of HCV testing services. Currently, there are no stringent regulatory authority (SRA) approved HCVSTs, therefore lay-user usability of three prototype kits was assessed. This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted with 171 (CareStart n = 60, Bioline n = 52, First Response n = 59) participants. Participants were given one of the three HCVST kits with only instructions for use (IFU) and asked to perform the test in front of a professional trained in rapid diagnostic tests (RDT). Usability indices were calculated based on the correctness of performing each step of the product-specific process followed by contrived results interpretation and a post-test interview. The usability index was 93.9% for CareStart, 90.7% for Bioline and 94.9% for First Response. Most errors were on incorrect handwashing, sample collection and transfer to the test device. An average of 93.1% of contrived results were correctly interpreted, with most errors related to interpreting invalid results. Most participants (n = 167) stated they would visit a clinic after a positive result. With negative results, nearly half (28/60 (46.7%)) stated they should condomize, while just over two-thirds of participants that used Bioline (35/52 (67.3%)) and First Response (38/59 (64.4%)) said they should re-test. Most participants (n = 162) found the devices easy to use. Participants liked that self-testing was fast, private and convenient, however there were some confusion with IFU steps and pictures, finger-pricking with the lancet, collecting blood after the finger-prick, and transferring the sample/buffer. Prototype HCVST kits exhibit high usability and result interpretation by lay-users, and should be considered for SRA approval.

Digital tools can support community-based decentralized testing initiatives to broaden access to COVID-19 diagnosis, especially in high-transmission settings. This operational study investigated the use of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for COVID-19 combined with an end-to-end digital health solution, in three taxi ranks in Johannesburg, South Africa. Members of the public were eligible if they were aged ≥18 years, could read, and had a cellphone. Over 15,000 participants, enrolled between June and September 2021, were screened for COVID-19 risk factors. A digital risk questionnaire identified 2061 (13%) participants as moderate risk and 2987 (19%) as high risk, based on symptoms and/or recent exposure to a known case. Of this group referred for testing, 3997 (79%) received Ag-RDTs, with positivity rates of 5.1% in the “high-risk” group and 0.8% in the “moderate-risk” group. A subset of 569 randomly selected participants received additional PCR testing. Sensitivity of the Ag-RDT in this setting was 40% (95% CI: 30.3%, 50.3%); most false negatives had high cycle threshold values (>25), hence low viral loads. Over 80% of participants who tested positive completed a 2-week phone-based follow-up questionnaire. Overall, the digital tool combined with Ag-RDTs enhanced community-based decentralized COVID-19 testing service delivery, reporting and follow-up.

Background SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus discovered in December 2019 and is currently the cause of the global COVID-19 pandemic. A critical aspect of fighting this pandemic is to obtain accurate and timely test results so that patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 can be identified and isolated to reduce the spread of the virus. Research has shown that saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because its collection is minimally invasive and can be reliably self-administered. However, little research has been conducted on saliva testing and SARS-CoV-2 self-sampling (SARS-CoV-2SS) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Objective The primary objective of this study is to comparatively evaluate the clinical sensitivity and specificity of nasal and oral samples self-collected by individuals for SARS-CoV-2 testing against a reference method involving sample collection and testing by a health care professional. The secondary objectives of this study are to evaluate the usability of nasal self-sampling and saliva self-sampling as a sample collection method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing by using failure mode and error assessment. Methods Participants will be recruited from the general population by using various methods, Participants will be screened progressively as they present at the clinical trial sites as well as in primary health care catchment areas in the inner city of Johannesburg, South Africa. In the event that recruitment numbers are low, we will use a mobile van to recruit participants from outlying areas of Johannesburg. We aim to enroll 250 participants into this study in approximately 6 weeks. Two sample types—a self-administered nasal swab and a self-administered saliva sample—will be collected from each participant, and a health care professional will collect a third sample by using a nasopharyngeal swab (ie, the standard reference method). Results This protocol has been approved by the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee on July 31, 2020 (Protocol number EzCov003). As of May 13, 2021, 120 participants have been enrolled into the study. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2SS may offer many benefits to individuals, by allowing for initial self-identification of symptoms and collection of samples without involving third parties and potential risk of infection provided the sample can be safely processed via a collection system. The results of this study will provide preliminary data on the acceptability, feasibility, and usability of SARS-CoV-2SS among the general population for its future implementation. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/24811

No abstract