Real-world evaluation of COVID-19 lateral flow device (LFD) mass-testing in healthcare workers at a London hospital; a prospective cohort analysis

Faster detection of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases among care home staff in England through the combination of SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies

To detect SARS-CoV-2 amongst asymptomatic care home staff in England, a dual-technology weekly testing regime was introduced on 23 December 2020. A lateral flow device (LFD) and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) test were taken on the same day (day 0) and a midweek LFD test was taken three to four days later. We evaluated the effectiveness of using dual-technology to detect SARS-CoV-2 between December 2020 to April 2021. Viral concentrations derived from qRT-PCR were used to determine the probable stage of infection and likely level of infectiousness. Day 0 PCR detected 1,493 cases of COVID-19, of which 53% were in the early stages of infection with little to no risk of transmission. Day 0 LFD detected 83% of cases that were highly likely to be infectious. On average, LFD results were received 46.3 h earlier than PCR, enabling removal of likely infectious staff from the workplace quicker than by weekly PCR alone. Demonstrating the rapidity of LFDs to detect highly infectious cases could be combined with the ability of PCR to detect cases in the very early stages of infection. In practice, asymptomatic care home staff were removed from the workplace earlier, breaking potential chains of transmission.

Evaluation of serum and urine biomarkers for severe COVID-19

Introduction

The new coronavirus disease, COVID-19, poses complex challenges exacerbated by several factors, with respiratory tissue lesions being notably significant among them. Consequently, there is a pressing need to identify informative biological markers that can indicate the severity of the disease. Several studies have highlighted the involvement of proteins such as APOA1, XPNPEP2, ORP150, CUBN, HCII, and CREB3L3 in these respiratory tissue lesions. However, there is a lack of information regarding antibodies to these proteins in the human body, which could potentially serve as valuable diagnostic markers for COVID-19. Simultaneously, it is relevant to select biological fluids that can be obtained without invasive procedures. Urine is one such fluid, but its effect on clinical laboratory analysis is not yet fully understood due to lack of study on its composition.

Methods

Methods used in this study are as follows: total serum protein analysis; ELISA on moderate and severe COVID-19 patients' serum and urine; bioinformatic methods: ROC analysis, PCA, SVM.

Results and discussion

The levels of antiAPOA1, antiXPNPEP2, antiORP150, antiCUBN, antiHCII, and antiCREB3L3 exhibit gradual fluctuations ranging from moderate to severe in both the serum and urine of COVID-19 patients. However, the diagnostic value of individual anti-protein antibodies is low, in both blood serum and urine. On the contrary, joint detection of these antibodies in patients' serum significantly increases the diagnostic value as demonstrated by the results of principal component analysis (PCA) and support vector machine (SVM). The non-linear regression model achieved an accuracy of 0.833. Furthermore, PCA aided in identifying serum protein markers that have the greatest impact on patient group discrimination. The study revealed that serum serves as a superior analyte for describing protein quantification due to its consistent composition and lack of organic salts and drug residues, which can otherwise affect protein stability.

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023)

COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n = 14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28-784,707) were pooled. Specificity and DOR was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37-99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41-78.75%; n = 9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03-90.59%; n = 14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64-96.62%; n = 13), and d) use of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18-84.63%; n = 14). Lower sensitivity was attributed to absence of symptoms, errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n = 16). Overall acceptability was 91.0-98.7% (n = 2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5-51.1%). Overall feasibility was 69.0-100.0% (n = 5) with lower feasibility (35.9-64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n = 4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. These data will guide COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for self-testing in pandemics worldwide.

A How to Guide: Clinical Population Test Development and Authorization of MALDI-ToF Mass Spectrometry-Based Screening Tests for Viral Infections

Applying MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry as a clinical diagnostic test for viruses is different from that of bacteria, fungi and other micro-organisms. This is because the systems biology of viral infections, the size and chemical nature of specific viral proteins and the mass spectrometry biophysics of how they are quantitated are fundamentally different. The analytical challenges to overcome when developing a clinical MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry tests for a virus, particularly human pathogenic enveloped viruses, are sample enrichment, virus envelope disruption, optimal matrix formulation, optimal MALDI ToF MS performance and optimal spectral data processing/bioinformatics. Primarily, the instrument operating settings have to be optimized to match the nature of the viral specific proteins, which are not compatible with setting established when testing for bacterial and many other micro-organisms. The capacity to be a viral infection clinical diagnostic instrument often stretches current mass spectrometers to their operational design limits. Finally, all the associated procedures, from sample collection to data analytics, for the technique have to meet the legal and operational requirement for often high-throughput clinical testing. Given the newness of the technology, clinical MALDI ToF mass spectrometry does not fit in with standard criteria applied by regulatory authorities whereby numeric outputs are compared directly to similar technology tests that have already been authorized for use. Thus, CLIA laboratory developed test (LDT) criteria have to be applied. This article details our experience of developing a SAR-CoV-2 MALDI-ToF MS test suitable for asymptomatic carrier infection population screening.

An Effective Mechanism for the Early Detection and Containment of Healthcare Worker Infections in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) to serious infection risks. In this context, the proactive monitoring of HCWs is the first step toward reducing intrahospital transmissions and safeguarding the HCW population, as well as reflecting the preparedness and response of the healthcare system. As such, this study systematically reviewed the literature on evidence-based effective monitoring measures for HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was followed by a meta-synthesis to compile the key findings, thus, providing a clearer overall understanding of the subject. Effective monitoring measures of syndromic surveillance, testing, contact tracing, and exposure management are distilled and further integrated to create a whole-process monitoring workflow framework. Taken together, a mechanism for the early detection and containment of HCW infections is, thus, constituted, providing a composite set of practical recommendations to healthcare facility leadership and policy makers to reduce nosocomial transmission rates while maintaining adequate staff for medical services. In this regard, our study paves the way for future studies aimed at strengthening surveillance capacities and upgrading public health system resilience, in order to respond more efficiently to future pandemic threats.

Implementation study of SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow tests in men's professional (Premiership) rugby union sports squads in England during the COVID-19 pandemic

This study evaluated the validity and utility of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in elite sports. The data on utility, ease of use and application for Ag-RDTs as a new testing format were positive from players and staff. This evaluation was limited by the low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 circulating within the three squads. This study highlights the need for continued service evaluations for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs in elite sport settings.