Search

A community-based coronavirus disease (COVID-19) active case-finding strategy using an antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) was implemented in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to enhance COVID-19 case detection. With this pilot community-based active case finding and response program that was designed as a clinical, prospective testing performance, and implementation study, we aimed to identify insights to improve community diagnosis and rapid response to COVID-19. This pilot study was modeled on the DRC's National COVID-19 Response Plan and the COVID-19 Ag-RDT screening algorithm defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), with case findings implemented in 259 health areas, 39 health zones, and 9 provinces. In each health area, a 7-member interdisciplinary field team tested the close contacts (ring strategy) and applied preventive and control measures to each confirmed case. The COVID-19 testing capacity increased from 0.3 tests per 10,000 inhabitants per week in the first wave to 0.4, 1.6, and 2.2 in the second, third, and fourth waves, respectively. From January to November 2021, this capacity increase contributed to an average of 10.5% of COVID-19 tests in the DRC, with 7,110 positive Ag-RDT results for 40,226 suspected cases and close contacts who were tested (53.6% female, median age: 37 years [interquartile range: 26.0-50.0)]. Overall, 79.7% (n = 32,071) of the participants were symptomatic and 7.6% (n = 3,073) had comorbidities. The Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 55.5% and 99.0%, respectively, based on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis, and there was substantial agreement between the tests (k = 0.63). Despite its limited sensitivity, the Ag-RDT has improved COVID-19 testing capacity, enabling earlier detection, isolation, and treatment of COVID-19 cases. Our findings support the community testing of suspected cases and asymptomatic close contacts of confirmed cases to reduce disease spread and virus transmission., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Otshudiema et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: Nationwide analyses are required to optimise and tailor activities to control future COVID-19 waves of resurgence continent-wide. We compared epidemiological and clinical outcomes of the four COVID-19 waves in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)., Methods: This retrospective descriptive epidemiological analysis included data from the national line list of confirmed COVID-19 cases in all provinces for all waves between 9 March 2020 and 2 January 2022. Descriptive statistical measures (frequencies, percentages, case fatality rates [CFR], test positivity rates [TPR], and characteristics) were compared using chi-squared or the Fisher-Irwin test., Results: During the study period, 72,108/445,084 (16.2%) tests were positive, with 9,641/56,637 (17.0%), 16,643/66,560 (25.0%), 24,172/157,945 (15.3%), and 21,652/163,942 (13.2%) cases during the first, second, third, and fourth waves, respectively. TPR significantly decreased from 17.0% in the first wave to 13.2% in the fourth wave as did infection of frontline health workers (5.2% vs. 0.9%). CFR decreased from 5.1 to 0.9% from the first to fourth wave. No sex- or age-related differences in distributions across different waves were observed. The majority of cases were asymptomatic in the first (73.1%) and second (86.6%) waves, in contrast to that in the third (11.1%) and fourth (31.3%) waves., Conclusion: Despite fewer reported cases, the primary waves (first and second) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the DRC were more severe than the third and fourth waves, with each wave being associated with a new SARS-CoV-2 variant. Tailored public health and social measures, and resurgence monitoring are needed to control future waves of COVID-19., (© 2022. The Author(s).)