Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2

Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection biomarkers in a household transmission study

SARS-CoV-2 is the causative agent of COVID-19. Timely and accurate diagnostic testing is vital to contain the spread of infection, reduce delays in treatment and care, and inform patient management. Optimal specimen type (e.g. nasal swabs or saliva), timing of sampling, viral marker assayed (RNA or antigen), and correlation with viral infectivity and COVID-19 symptoms severity remain incompletely defined. We conducted a field study to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 viral marker kinetics starting from very early times after infection. We measured RNA and antigen levels in nasal swabs and saliva, virus outgrowth in cell culture from nasal swabs, and antibody levels in blood in a cohort of 30 households. Nine household contacts (HHC) became infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the study. Viral RNA was detected in saliva specimens approximately 1-2 days before nasal swabs in six HHC. Detection of RNA was more sensitive than of antigen, but antigen detection was better correlated with culture positivity, a proxy for contagiousness. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies peaked one to three weeks post-infection. Viral RNA and antigen levels were higher in specimens yielding replication competent virus in cell culture. This study provides important data that can inform how to optimally interpret SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test results.

Comprehensive, comparative evaluation of 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays

IMPORTANCE

We have previously highlighted the fact that hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests were released months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the hundreds of studies investigating the test kits' performance, few were comparative reports, using the same comprehensive sample set across multiple tests. Recently, we reported a comparative assessment of 35 rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for use in low- and middle-income countries, using a large sample set from individuals with a history of COVID-19. Only a few tests meet WHO Target Product Profile performance requirements. This study reports on the performance of a further 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays using the same panel of samples. The results highlight the better analytical and clinical performance of automated serology test kits compared with RDTs, and the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostic and epidemiological investigations.

Comprehensive, Comparative Evaluation of 35 Manual SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays

The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in hundreds of in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) coming to market, facilitated by regulatory authorities allowing "emergency use" without a comprehensive evaluation of performance. The World Health Organization (WHO) released target product profiles (TPPs) specifying acceptable performance characteristics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay devices. We evaluated 26 rapid diagnostic tests and 9 enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-SARS-CoV-2, suitable for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), against these TPPs and other performance characteristics. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 60.1 to 100% and 56.0 to 100%, respectively. Five of 35 test kits reported no false reactivity for 55 samples with potentially cross-reacting substances. Six test kits reported no false reactivity for 35 samples containing interfering substances, and only one test reported no false reactivity with samples positive for other coronaviruses (not SARS-CoV-2). This study demonstrates that a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of test kits against defined specifications is essential for the selection of test kits, especially in a pandemic setting. IMPORTANCE The markets have been flooded with hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, and although there are many published reports on their performance, comparative reports are far fewer and tend to be limited to only a few tests. In this report, we comparatively assessed 35 rapid diagnostic tests or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) using a large set of samples from individuals with a history of mild to moderate COVID-19, commensurate with the target population for serosurveillance, which included serum samples from individuals previously infected, at undetermined time periods, with other seasonal human coronaviruses, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and SARS-CoV-1. The significant heterogeneity in their performances, with only a few tests meeting WHO target product profile performance requirements, highlights the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.

Fuzzy-Based PROMETHEE Method for Performance Ranking of SARS-CoV-2 IgM Antibody Tests

Antibody tests, widely used as a complementary approach to reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in identifying COVID-19 cases, are used to measure antibodies developed for COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the different parameters of the FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibody tests and to rank them according to their performance levels. In the study, we involved 27 antibody tests, and the analyzes were performed using the fuzzy preference ranking organization method for the enrichment evaluation model, a multi-criteria decision-making model. While criteria such as analytical sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were evaluated in the study, the ranking was reported by determining the importance levels of the criteria. According to our evaluation, Innovita 2019-nCoV Ab Test (colloidal gold) was at the top of the ranking. While Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test and Assure COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Tester ranked second and third on the list, the InBios-SCoV 2 Detect Ig M ELISA Rapid Test Kit was determined as the least preferable. The fuzzy preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation, which has been applied to many fields, can help decision-makers choose the appropriate antibody test for managing COVID-19 in controlling the global pandemic.

Development of colorimetric cellulose-based test-strip for the rapid detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV2 virus

Given the pandemic situation, there is an urgent need for an accurate test to monitor antibodies anti-SARS-CoV-2, providing crucial epidemiological and clinical information to monitor the evolution of coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19) and to stratify the immunized and asymptomatic population. Therefore, this paper describes a new cellulose-based test strip for rapid and cost-effective quantitative detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV2 virus by colorimetric transduction. For this purpose, Whatman paper was chemically modified with sodium metaperiodate to introduce aldehyde groups on its surface. Subsequently, the spike protein of the virus is covalently bound by forming an imine group. The chemical control of cellulose paper modification was evaluated by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, thermogravimetry and contact angle analysis. Colorimetric detection of the antibodies was performed by a conventional staining method using Ponceau S solution as the dye. Color analysis was performed after image acquisition with a smartphone using Image J software. The color intensity varied linearly with the logarithm of the anti-S concentration (from 10 ng/mL to 1 μg/mL) in 500-fold diluted serum samples when plotted against the green coordinate extracted from digital images. The test strip was selective in the presence of nucleocapsid antibodies, urea, glucose, and bovine serum albumin with less than 15% interference, and detection of antibodies in human serum was successfully performed. Overall, this is a simple and affordable design that can be readily used for mass population screening and does not require sophisticated equipment or qualified personnel.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10570-022-04808-y.

Evaluation of the Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test in Samples from Vaccinated Individuals

The study aimed to establish the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG and IgM) and the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay in vaccinated individuals. A panel of serum samples from Boca Biolistics was utilized to assess antibodies following vaccination, consisting of samples drawn prior to vaccination, after the first dose, or at least 14 days after the second dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines. Agreement between the two methods was measured and stratified by test evaluator and assay lot. Agreement between the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay qualitative measurements at the different assessment points for both mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 ranged between 97.06% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.67, 99.93) to 100% (95% CI 82.35, 100). Agreement of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay was not highly influenced by either lot or evaluator. There was a medium-to-strong correlation between the semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) result and quantitative Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay in samples taken after both doses of the vaccines, with higher intensity bands being associated with higher total anti-S antibody titer (mRNA-1273, P = 0.0019; BNT162b2, P < 0.0001). Conclusion Semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) and quantitative Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay correlated well, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) is helpful in understanding the immune response postvaccination. The current data support the use of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) in the vaccinated population.

IMPORTANCE Serologic assays are an essential tool for seroprevalence surveys, for quality control of vaccines, and to determine the response to vaccination. Although a correlate of immunity has not yet been established for COVID-19 vaccines, antibody titers after natural infection and vaccination have been associated with protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rapid point-of-care assays can be of use in this context with advantages over centralized testing, such as speed and ease of use. The point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) compared favorably to the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay with agreement rates above 97.06%, after one or two doses of Moderna mRNA-1273 or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2. Semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) and quantitative Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay results correlated well, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) is helpful in understanding the immune response postvaccination. The current data support the use of the SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test (IgG) in the vaccinated population.

Comparative Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Immunochromatographic Test Assays with Chemiluminescent Immunoassay for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

Background To date, the molecular assay is the gold-standard method for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, they are expensive and complex. There is a pressing necessity for developing other effective diagnostics for SARS‐CoV‐2 patients. Therefore, serological detection of antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 might provide a good alternative. Aim We aimed to compare and evaluate seven rapid diagnostic tests with Mindray chemiluminescent automated immunoassay as a reference method for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection. Methods: This study included the serum of a total of 49 attendees to the Reference Laboratory of Egyptian university hospitals during the period from April 2021 to May 2021. Anti-Covid-19 antibodies detection in serum samples was performed by Mindray fully automated system as our reference method and seven rapid antibody tests; Wondfo, Vazyme, Dynamiker, Panbio, Artron Maccura and Roche. Results: The chemiluminescent assay revealed 30 (61.2%) positive samples and 19 (38.8%) negative samples for COVID-19 IgG. For COVID-19 IgM, 11 (22.4%) samples were positive and 38 (77.6%) samples were negative. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were not detected in any of the PCR negative individuals. The best diagnostic performance was demonstrated by Roche IgG and IgM, and Vazyme IgG and IgM antibody tests followed by Panbio. For Roche, the sensitivity and specificity for IgG and IgM were (83.3%, 89.5%) and (72.7%, 81.6%) respectively. Vazyme showed sensitivity and specificity for IgG and IgM were (77.8%, 85.7%) and (75%, 91.7%) respectively. Regards Panbio, the sensitivity and specificity for IgG and IgM were (63.6%, 87.5%) and (50%, 86.7%) respectively. Cohen’s Kappa values revealed a substantial agreement for Roche IgG, Vazyme IgG and IgM of (0.7076, 0.6250, 0.6667) respectively. The worst agreement was reported for Maccura IgG, Wondfo, and Dynamiker IgM with Cohen’s Kappa values of (0.2508, 0.1893, 0.0313) respectively. Conclusions: Rapid tests in our study exhibited heterogeneous diagnostic performances. Roche, Vazyme, and Panbio antibody tests showed promising results in concordance with our reference method with the best-reported results. On the other hand, the other tests were inferior and failed in providing valid and reliable results. Further studies are necessary to determine the practicality of these tests in different settings and communities.

A dried blood spot protocol for high throughput analysis of SARS-CoV-2 serology based on the Roche Elecsys anti-N assay

BACKGROUND

Since 2020 SARS-CoV-2 spreads pandemically, infecting more than 119 million people, causing >2·6 million fatalities. Symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection vary greatly, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal. Different populations react differently to the disease, making it very hard to track the spread of the infection in a population. Measuring specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is an important tool to assess the spread of the infection or successful vaccinations. To achieve sufficient sample numbers, alternatives to venous blood sampling are needed not requiring medical personnel or cold-chains. Dried-blood-spots (DBS) on filter-cards have been used for different studies, but not routinely for serology.

METHODS

We developed a semi-automated protocol using self-sampled DBS for SARS-CoV-2 serology. It was validated in a cohort of matched DBS and venous-blood samples (n = 1710). Feasibility is demonstrated with two large serosurveys with 10247 company employees and a population cohort of 4465 participants.

FINDINGS

Sensitivity and specificity reached 99·20% and 98·65%, respectively. Providing written instructions and video tutorials, 99·87% (4465/4471) of the unsupervised home sampling DBS cards could be analysed.

INTERPRETATION

DBS-sampling is a valid and highly reliable tool for large scale serosurveys. We demonstrate feasibility and accuracy with a large validation cohort including unsupervised home sampling. This protocol might be of big importance for surveillance in resource-limited settings, providing low-cost highly accurate serology data.

FUNDING

Provided by Bavarian State Ministry of Science and the Arts, LMU University-Hospital; Helmholtz-Centre-Munich, German Ministry for Education and Research (project01KI20271); University of Bonn; University of Bielefeld; the Medical Biodefense Research Program of Bundeswehr-Medical-Service; Euroimmun, RocheDiagnostics provided discounted kits and machines.

COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests Show High Cross-Reactivity When Challenged with Pre-Pandemic Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Dengue Samples

COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests (COVID-19 Ab RDTs) are the preferred tool for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The present study challenged COVID-19 Ab RDTs with pre-pandemic samples of patients exposed to tropical pathogens. A retrospective study was performed on archived serum (n = 94) and EDTA whole blood (n = 126) samples obtained during 2010–2018 from 196 travelers with malaria (n = 170), schistosomiasis (n = 25) and dengue (n = 25). COVID-19 Ab RDTs were selected based on regulatory approval status, independent evaluation results and detecting antigens. Among 13 COVID-19 Ab RDT products, overall cross-reactivity was 18.5%; cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue was 20.3%, 18.1% and 7.5%, respectively. Cross-reactivity for current and recent malaria, malaria antibodies, Plasmodium species and parasite densities was similar. Cross-reactivity among the different RDT products ranged from 2.7% to 48.9% (median value 14.5%). IgM represented 67.9% of cross-reactive test lines. Cross-reactivity was not associated with detecting antigens, patient categories or disease (sub)groups, except for schistosomiasis (two products with ≥60% cross-reactivity). The high cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and—to a lesser extent—dengue calls for risk mitigation when using COVID-19 Ab RDTs in co-endemic regions.