Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background The InBios SCoV-2 DetectTM IgG ELISA (InBios) and the in-house KWTRP ELISA (KWTRP) have both been used in the estimation of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Kenya. Whereas the latter has been validated extensively using local samples, the former has not. Such validation is important for informing the comparability of data across the sites and populations where seroprevalence has been reported. Methods We compared the assays directly using pre-pandemic serum/plasma collected in 2018 from 454 blood donors and 173 malaria cross-sectional survey participants, designated gold standard negatives. As gold standard SARS-CoV-2 positive samples: we assayed serum/plasma from 159 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients and 166 vaccination-confirmed participants. Results The overall agreement on correctly classified samples was >0.87 for both assays. The overall specificity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87–0.91) for InBios and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97–0.99) for KWTRP among the gold standard negative samples while the overall sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94–0.98) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90– 0.95) for InBios and KWTRP ELISAs respectively, among the gold standard positive samples. Conclusions Overall, both assays showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to estimate SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in different populations in Kenya.

Original publication

DOI

10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20240.1

Type

Journal article

Journal

Wellcome Open Research

Publisher

F1000 Research Ltd

Publication Date

28/06/2024

Volume

9

Pages

349 - 349