IntroductionAfrica contributes little to the biomedical literature despite its high burden of infectious diseases. Global health research partnerships aimed at addressing Africa-endemic disease may be polarised. Therefore, we assessed the contribution of researchers in Africa to research on six infectious diseases.MethodsWe reviewed publications on HIV and malaria (2013–2016), tuberculosis (2014–2016), salmonellosis, Ebola haemorrhagic fever and Buruli ulcer disease (1980–2016) conducted in Africa and indexed in the PubMed database using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Papers reporting original research done in Africa with at least one laboratory test performed on biological samples were included. We studied African author proportion and placement per study type, disease, funding, study country and lingua franca.ResultsWe included 1182 of 2871 retrieved articles that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 1109 (93.2%) had at least one Africa-based author, 552 (49.8%) had an African first author and 41.3% (n=458) an African last author. Papers on salmonellosis and tuberculosis had a higher proportion of African last authors (p<0.001) compared with the other diseases. Most of African first and last authors had an affiliation from an Anglophone country. HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and Ebola had the most extramurally funded studies (≥70%), but less than 10% of the acknowledged funding was from an African funder.ConclusionAfrican researchers are under-represented in first and last authorship positions in papers published from research done in Africa. This calls for greater investment in capacity building and equitable research partnerships at every level of the global health community.

Background Real-time PCR is recommended to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, PCR availability is restricted in most countries. Rapid diagnostic tests are considered acceptable alternatives, but data are lacking on their performance. We assessed the performance of four antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests and one antigen-based rapid diagnostic test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community in Cameroon. MethodsIn this clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study, we enrolled individuals aged at least 21 years who were either symptomatic and suspected of having COVID-19 or asymptomatic and presented for screening. We tested peripheral blood for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using the Innovita (Biological Technology; Beijing, China), Wondfo (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech; Guangzhou, China), SD Biosensor (SD Biosensor; Gyeonggi-do, South Korea), and Runkun tests (Runkun Pharmaceutical; Hunan, China), and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen using the SD Biosensor test. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Abbott PCR testing (Abbott; Abbott Park, IL, USA), and antibody rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Biomerieux immunoassays (Biomerieux; Marcy l'Etoile, France). We retrospectively tested two diagnostic algorithms that incorporated rapid diagnostic tests for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients using simulation modelling. Findings 1195 participants were enrolled in the study. 347 (29%) tested SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive, 223 (19%) rapid diagnostic test antigen-positive, and 478 (40%) rapid diagnostic test antibody-positive. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic test sensitivity was 80•0% (95% CI 71•0-88•0) in the first 7 days after symptom onset, but antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests had only 26•8% sensitivity (18•3-36•8). Antibody rapid diagnostic test sensitivity increased to 76•4% (70•1-82•0) 14 days after symptom onset. Among asymptomatic participants, the sensitivity of antigen-based and antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests were 37•0% (27•0-48•0) and 50•7% (42•2-59•1), respectively. Cohen's κ showed substantial agreement between Wondfo antibody rapid diagnostic test and gold-standard ELISA (κ=0•76; sensitivity 0•98) and between Biosensor and ELISA (κ=0•60; sensitivity 0•94). Innovita (κ=0•47; sensitivity 0•93) and Runkun (κ=0•43; sensitivity 0•76) showed moderate agreement. An antigen-based retrospective algorithm applied to symptomatic patients showed 94•0% sensitivity and 91•0% specificity in the first 7 days after symptom onset. For asymptomatic participants, the algorithm showed a sensitivity of 34% (95% CI 23•0-44•0) and a specificity of 92•0% (88•0-96•0). Interpretation Rapid diagnostic tests had good overall sensitivity for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rapid diagnostic tests could be incorporated into efficient testing algorithms as an alternative to PCR to decrease diagnostic delays and onward viral transmission. Funding Médecins Sans Frontières WACA and Médecins Sans Frontières OCG.

Official case counts suggest Africa has not seen the expected burden of COVID-19 as predicted by international health agencies, and the proportion of asymptomatic patients, disease severity, and mortality burden differ significantly in Africa from what has been observed elsewhere. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 was extremely limited early in the pandemic and likely led to under-reporting of cases leaving important gaps in our understanding of transmission and disease characteristics in the African context. SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence and serologic response data could help quantify the burden of COVID-19 disease in Africa to address this knowledge gap and guide future outbreak response, adapted to the local context. However, such data are widely lacking in Africa. We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence survey among 1,192 individuals seeking COVID-19 screening and testing in central Cameroon using the Innovita antibody-based rapid diagnostic. Overall immunoglobulin prevalence was 32%, IgM prevalence was 20%, and IgG prevalence was 24%. IgM positivity gradually increased, peaking around symptom day 20. IgG positivity was similar, gradually increasing over the first 10 days of symptoms, then increasing rapidly to 30 days and beyond. These findings highlight the importance of diagnostic testing and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Cameroon, which likely resulted in artificially low case counts. Rapid antibody tests are a useful diagnostic modality for seroprevalence surveys and infection diagnosis starting 5-7 days after symptom onset. These results represent the first step towards better understanding the SARS-CoV-2 immunological response in African populations.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is hyperendemic in Cameroon, and healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of infection. We aimed to assess prevalence, risk factors and vaccine coverage of HBV infection among HCWs in Cameroon. We conducted a cross‐sectional study in 16 hospitals across all regions of Cameroon. HCWs were tested for HBV using rapid diagnostic tests (RDT). We collected data on socio‐demographics and HBV vaccination status. We estimated prevalence of HBV and used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to model the prevalence ratios of HBV positivity between covariates. We enrolled 1824 of 1836 eligible HCWs (97.5%). The mean age was 34 (SD: 10) years, 65.3% (n = 1787) were women, and 11.4% (n = 1747) had three or more doses of the HBV vaccine. Overall, we found a HBV prevalence of 8.7% (95% CI: 5.2%‐14.3%). Patient transporters had the highest crude prevalence (14.3%; 95%CI: 5.4%‐32.9%), whereas medical doctors had the lowest (3.2%; 95%CI: 0.8%‐12.1%). The Far North Region had the highest prevalence of HBV (24.0%; 95%CI: 18.3%‐30.8%). HBV prevalence decreased with increasing doses of the HBV vaccine (10.3% for no doses vs 3.5% for three or more doses; P < 0.001). In conclusion, approximately 1 in 12 HCWs in Cameroon have evidence of HBV infection, yet fewer than 1 in 6 have been fully vaccinated. Our results illustrate the urgent need to scale up systematic HBV screening and targeted vaccination of HCWs in the region.

BackgroundInfection with SARS-CoV-2 can lead to a detectable serological immune response even though extent of its protection is still not yet well known. We report long duration and resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. MethodsWe included a cohort of 99 participants from our non-blinded non-randomized evaluation of COVID-19 tests in Cameroon. Demographic and clinical information was collected from participants including self-reported age, race, ethnicity, and gender. Qualitative data was described as proportions while quantitative data was described with means and accompanying ranges.ResultsDuration of PCR for SARS-CoV-2 positivity was found to range from 4 – 81 days, with mean duration of 32.8 days in patients with PCR-positive. We also identified 4 participants who also had SARS-CoV-2 resurgence within a three-month period. ConclusionThese observations raise questions on clinical decision to release COVID-19 cases from isolation after 14 days.