Background Rapid diagnostics are vital for curving the transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many commercially available antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are recommended by the WHO, their diagnostic performance has not yet been assessed in Ethiopia. So far, the vast majority of studies assessing diagnostic accuracies of rapid antigen tests considered RT-PCR as a reference standard, which inevitably leads to bias when RT-PCR is not 100% sensitive and specific. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Panbio™ jointly with the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was done from July to September 2021 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during the third wave of the pandemic involving two health centers and two hospitals. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ and RT-PCR were obtained using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM). Results 438 COVID-19 presumptive clients were enrolled, 239 (54.6%) were females, of whom 196 (44.7%) had a positive RT-PCR and 158 (36.1%) were Panbio™ positive. The Panbio™ and RT-PCR had a sensitivity (95% CrI) of 99.6 (98.4–100) %, 89.3 (83.2–97.6) % and specificity (95% CrI) of 93.4 (82.3–100) %, and 99.1 (97.5–100) %, respectively. Most of the study participants, 318 (72.6%) exhibited COVID-19 symptoms; the most reported was cough 191 (43.6%). Conclusion As expected the RT-PCR performed very well with a near-perfect specificity and a high, but not perfect sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of Panbio™ is coherent with the WHO established criteria of having a sensitivity ≥80% for Ag-RDTs. Both tests displayed high diagnostic accuracies in patients with and without symptoms. Hence, we recommend the use of the Panbio™ for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in clinical settings for screening purposes.

BackgroundRapid diagnostics are vital for curving the transmission and control of COVID-19 pandemic. Although many commercially available antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are recommended by the WHO, their diagnostic performance has not yet been assessed in Ethiopia. So far, the vast majority of studies assessing diagnostic accuracies of rapid antigen tests considered RT-PCR as a gold standard, which inevitably leads to bias when RT-PCR is not 100% sensitive and specific. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Panbio ™ COVID-19 rapid antigen test jointly together with the RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsA prospective cross-sectional study was done from July to September 2021 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during the third wave of the pandemic involving two health centers and two hospitals. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of Panbio™ rapid antigen test and RT-PCR were obtained using Bayesian Latent-Class Models (BLCM).Results438 COVID-19 presumptive clients were enrolled, 239 (54.6%) were females, of whom 196 (44.7%) had a positive RT-PCR and 158 (36.1%) were Ag-RDT positive. The Ag-RDT and RT-PCR had a sensitivity (95% CrI) of 99.6 (98.4-100), 89.3 (83.2-97.6) and specificity (95% CrI) of 93.4 (82.3 - 100), 99.1 (97.5-100) respectively. Most of the study participants, 318 (72.6) exhibited COVID-19 symptoms and the most reported was cough 191 (43.6).ConclusionThe diagnostic performance of Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag RDT is coherent with the WHO established criteria of having a sensitivity ≥80% for Ag-RDTs. Superior performance of the Panbio™ RDT was documented in samples with the lowest cycle-threshold RT-PCR values and clients with confirmed clinical symptoms. Thus, we recommend the use of the Panbio™ RDT for both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in clinical settings for screening purposes.

BackgroundIn developing countries, the co-existence of a high burden of infectious diseases caused by Gram-negative bacteria and the rapid increase and spread of multidrug-resistant bacteria have become a serious health threat.ObjectiveProfiling of Gram-negative bacteria and determining the magnitude of their antimicrobial resistance among patients.ResultsA total of 175 non-spore-forming Gram-negative bacteria were isolated from 873 different clinical samples. Of a total of 175 bacteria, 154 (88%) were fermentative Gram-negative bacteria, while 21 (12%) were non-fermentative Gram-negative bacteria. E. coli with a frequency of 58.3% and K. pneumoniae with a frequency of 18.3% were the predominant fermentative Gram-negative bacteria, while P. aeruginosa 9 (5.1%) and A. baumannii 6 (3.4%) were the predominant non-fermentative Gram-negative bacteria. The highest percentage level of antibiotic resistance was seen against ampicillin (86%), and the lowest against meropenem (9.8). About 49 (28%) Gram-negative bacilli were positive for ESBLase. The overall prevalence rate of MDR bacteria was 80.5%, of which 100% of A. baumannii, 90.6% of K. pneumonia. Sixteen isolates were resistant to meropenem, out of which 11 tested for carbapenemase production. Five of the nine were metallo-lactamase producers, with the remaining four being serine carbapenemase producers.ConclusionThe prevalence of Gram-negative bacterial infection was found to be 20%, with a significant proportion (80.0%) due to fermentative Gram-negative bacteria and the remaining 20% due to non-fermentative Gram-negative bacteria. The study has also demonstrated a high prevalence rate of MDR, ESBLase, and carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria. Antimicrobial resistance of Gram-negative bacteria should be monitored on a regular basis, and an effective infection control program should be implemented.