A Comparison of three Methods to Estimate the Glomerular Filtration Rate in Diabetic Patients at the Ngaoundere Regional Hospital (Cameroon)

Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) can be done using different methods. The cheaper and most available are those with formulas to determine the estimated GFR. The majority of these formulas have been developed among extra- African populations. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 3 formulas are almost used to estimate GFR which are MDRD, CG and CKD-EPI. This present study was conducted to assess the importance of these formulas as estimators of GFR for diabetic among African Populations. The study was conducted at the Ngaoundere Regional Hospital. Only diabetics from 30 to 78 years attending the regional hospital were enrolled in the study. After enrolment, diabetics with very high values of urea and/or creatinine were excluded. We evaluated CG, MDRD and CKD–EPI as estimators of GFR. Creatinine clearance of 24 hours has been considered as gold standard method. 60 participants were included for sex ratio (M/F) 1.5. The average eGFR of diabetics with high Blood Pressure was lower (91.2 ml / min) than diabetics with lower Blood Pressure (102 ml / min) according to ClCr24. A significant correlation (0.975) between MDRD and CKD-EPI was found when measuring eGFR. It was less significant between CG and MDRD (0.663) and; between CG and CKD-EPI (0.729). A strong similarity was noticed between MDRD and CKD-EPI (92%) while it was smaller between MDRD and CG (55%) and between CKD-EPI and CG (63%) when estimating the stage of kidney diseases. Compared to ClCr24, similarity in half results was found with MDRD (50%) and less than half with CKD-EPI (48%) and CG (38%). The study shown higher value of fasting blood glucose of diabetics attending the Ngaoundere Regional Hospital (212.1 ± 83.0 mg / dl) than the normal recommandation (127-144 mg / dl) for diabetic patients. The average value of the eGFR with MDRD (76.6 ± 20.0 mL / min) was closer to CKD-EPI (78.8 ± 20.4 ml / min) (P<0,001 ; X2=0,976). eGFR was lower in diabetics with high Blood Pressure compared to diabetics with low Blood Pressure. Estimation of CKD stages using MDRD and CKD shown significant similarity. In conclusion, CKD-EPI and MDRD estimated better the GFR. MDRD presented values that were closer to the Creatinine clearance of 24 hours. Further studies are needed with more participants to evaluate the best formula between MDRD and CKD-EPI for the estimation of GFR in Sub-Saharan diabetic population

Comparative Performance of Serological (IgM/IgG) and Molecular Testing (RT-PCR) of COVID-19 in Three Private Universities in Cameroon during the Pandemic

Background: COVID-19 remains a rapidly evolving and deadly pandemic worldwide. This necessitates the continuous assessment of existing diagnostic tools for a robust, up-to-date, and cost-effective pandemic response strategy. We sought to determine the infection rate (PCR-positivity) and degree of spread (IgM/IgG) of SARS-CoV-2 in three university settings in Cameroon Method: Study volunteers were recruited from November 2020 to July 2021 among COVID-19 non-vaccinated students in three Universities from two regions of Cameroon (West and Centre). Molecular testing was performed by RT-qPCR on nasopharyngeal swabs, and IgM/IgG antibodies in plasma were detected using the Abbott Panbio IgM/IgG rapid diagnostic test (RDT) at the Virology Laboratory of CREMER/IMPM/MINRESI. The molecular and serological profiles were compared, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Amongst the 291 participants enrolled (mean age 22.59 ± 10.43 years), 19.59% (57/291) were symptomatic and 80.41% (234/291) were asymptomatic. The overall COVID-19 PCR-positivity rate was 21.31% (62/291), distributed as follows: 25.25% from UdM-Bangangte, 27.27% from ISSBA-Yaounde, and 5% from IUEs/INSAM-Yaounde. Women were more affected than men (28.76% [44/153] vs. 13.04% [18/138], p < 0.0007), and had higher seropositivity rates to IgM+/IgG+ (15.69% [24/153] vs. 7.25% [10/138], p < 0.01). Participants from Bangangté, the nomadic, and the “non-contact cases” primarily presented an active infection compared to those from Yaoundé (p= 0.05, p = 0.05, and p = 0.01, respectively). Overall IgG seropositivity (IgM−/IgG+ and IgM+/IgG+) was 24.4% (71/291). A proportion of 26.92% (7/26) presenting COVID-19 IgM+/IgG− had negative PCR vs. 73.08% (19/26) with positive PCR, p < 0.0001. Furthermore, 17.65% (6/34) with COVID-19 IgM+/IgG+ had a negative PCR as compared to 82.35% with a positive PCR (28/34), p < 0.0001. Lastly, 7.22% (14/194) with IgM−/IgG− had a positive PCR. Conclusion: This study calls for a rapid preparedness and response strategy in higher institutes in the case of any future pathogen with pandemic or epidemic potential. The observed disparity between IgG/IgM and the viral profile supports prioritizing assays targeting the virus (nucleic acid or antigen) for diagnosis and antibody screening for sero-surveys

Comparative Performance of Serological (IgM/IgG) and Molecular Testing (RT-PCR) of COVID-19 in Three Private Universities in Cameroon during the Pandemic

Background: COVID-19 remains a rapidly evolving and deadly pandemic worldwide. This necessitates the continuous assessment of existing diagnostic tools for a robust, up-to-date, and cost-effective pandemic response strategy. We sought to determine the infection rate (PCR-positivity) and degree of spread (IgM/IgG) of SARS-CoV-2 in three university settings in Cameroon Method: Study volunteers were recruited from November 2020 to July 2021 among COVID-19 non-vaccinated students in three Universities from two regions of Cameroon (West and Centre). Molecular testing was performed by RT-qPCR on nasopharyngeal swabs, and IgM/IgG antibodies in plasma were detected using the Abbott Panbio IgM/IgG rapid diagnostic test (RDT) at the Virology Laboratory of CREMER/IMPM/MINRESI. The molecular and serological profiles were compared, and p p p p= 0.05, p = 0.05, and p = 0.01, respectively). Overall IgG seropositivity (IgM−/IgG+ and IgM+/IgG+) was 24.4% (71/291). A proportion of 26.92% (7/26) presenting COVID-19 IgM+/IgG− had negative PCR vs. 73.08% (19/26) with positive PCR, p p < 0.0001. Lastly, 7.22% (14/194) with IgM−/IgG− had a positive PCR. Conclusion: This study calls for a rapid preparedness and response strategy in higher institutes in the case of any future pathogen with pandemic or epidemic potential. The observed disparity between IgG/IgM and the viral profile supports prioritizing assays targeting the virus (nucleic acid or antigen) for diagnosis and antibody screening for sero-surveys