Screening for human immunodeficiency virus using a newly developed fourth generation lateral flow immunochromatography assay

Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?

New tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics are at a crossroads: their development, evaluation, and implementation is severely damaged by resource diversion due to COVID-19. Yet several technologies, especially those with potential for non-invasive non-sputum-based testing, hold promise for efficiently triaging and rapidly confirming TB near point-of-care. Such tests are, however, progressing through the pipeline slowly and will take years to reach patients and health workers. Compellingly, such tests will create new opportunities for difficult-to-diagnose populations, including primary care attendees (all-comers in high burden settings irrespective of reason for presentation) and community members (with early stage disease or risk factors like HIV), many of whom cannot easily produce sputum. Critically, all upcoming technologies have limitations that implementers and health workers need to be cognizant of to ensure optimal deployment without undermining confidence in a technology that still offers improvements over the status quo. In this state-of-the-art review, we critically appraise such technologies for active pulmonary TB diagnosis. We highlight strengths, limitations, outstanding research questions, and how current and future tests could be used in the presence of these limitations and uncertainties. Among triage tests, CRP (for which commercial near point-of-care devices exist) and computer-aided detection software with digital chest X-ray hold promise, together with late-stage blood-based assays that detect host and/or microbial biomarkers; however, aside from a handful of prototypes, the latter category has a shortage of promising late-stage alternatives. Furthermore, positive results from new triage tests may have utility in people without TB; however, their utility for informing diagnostic pathways for other diseases is under-researched (most sick people tested for TB do not have TB). For confirmatory tests, few true point-of-care options will be available soon; however, combining novel approaches like tongue swabs with established tests like Ultra have short-term promise but first require optimizations to specimen collection and processing procedures. Concerningly, no technologies yet have compelling evidence of meeting the World Health Organization optimal target product profile performance criteria, especially for important operational criteria crucial for field deployment. This is alarming as the target product profile criteria are themselves almost a decade old and require urgent revision, especially to cater for technologies made prominent by the COVID-19 diagnostic response (e.g., at-home testing and connectivity solutions). Throughout the review, we underscore the importance of how target populations and settings affect test performance and how the criteria by which these tests should be judged vary by use case, including in active case finding. Lastly, we advocate for health workers and researchers to themselves be vocal proponents of the uptake of both new tests and those − already available tests that remain suboptimally utilized.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibody detection with a lateral flow immunoassay test

The dramatic impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the worldwide public health has elicited the rapid assessment of molecular and serological diagnostic methods. Notwithstanding the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is based on molecular biology approaches including multiplex or singleplex real time RT-PCR, there is a real need for affordable and rapid serological methods to support diagnostics, and surveillance of infection spreading. In this study, we performed a diagnostic accuracy analysis of COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test cassette lateral flow immunoassay test (LFIA) assay. To do so, we analyzed different cohorts of blood samples obtained from 151 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay positive patients (group 1) and 51 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay negative patients (group 2) in terms of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and likelihood ratios. In addition, we challenged LFIA with plasma from 99 patients stored during 2015–2017 period. Our results showed that this LFIA detected SARS-CoV-2 IgM and/or IgG in 103 out of 151 (68.21%) samples of group 1, whereas no IgM and/or IgG detection was displayed both in the group 2 and in pre-pandemic samples. Interestingly, IgM and/or IgG positivity was detected in 86 out of 94 (91.49%) group 1 samples collected after 10 days from symptoms onset whereas only 17 out of 57 of group 1 samples obtained before day 10 were positive to SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. We also compared the performance of this LFIA test with respect to other four different LFIA assays in 40 serum samples from multiplex RT-PCR positive individuals. Within the limits of the study size, the results demonstrated that COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test cassette LFIA assay displayed valid performance in IgM and IgG detection when compared with the other four LFIA assays.

Hence, this approach might be considered as an alternative point-of-care procedure for SARS-CoV-2 serological investigation.

Biosensing strategies for the electrochemical detection of viruses and viral diseases - A review

Viruses are the causing agents for many relevant diseases, including influenza, Ebola, HIV/AIDS, and COVID-19. Its rapid replication and high transmissibility can lead to serious consequences not only to the individual but also to collective health, causing deep economic impacts. In this scenario, diagnosis tools are of significant importance, allowing the rapid, precise, and low-cost testing of a substantial number of individuals. Currently, PCR-based techniques are the gold standard for the diagnosis of viral diseases. Although these allow the diagnosis of different illnesses with high precision, they still present significant drawbacks. Their main disadvantages include long periods for obtaining results and the need for specialized professionals and equipment, requiring the tests to be performed in research centers. In this scenario, biosensors have been presented as promising alternatives for the rapid, precise, low-cost, and on-site diagnosis of viral diseases. This critical review article describes the advancements achieved in the last five years regarding electrochemical biosensors for the diagnosis of viral infections. First, genosensors and aptasensors for the detection of virus and the diagnosis of viral diseases are presented in detail regarding probe immobilization approaches, detection methods (label-free and sandwich), and amplification strategies. Following, immunosensors are highlighted, including many different construction strategies such as label-free, sandwich, competitive, and lateral-flow assays. Then, biosensors for the detection of viral-diseases-related biomarkers are presented and discussed, as well as point of care systems and their advantages when compared to traditional techniques. Last, the difficulties of commercializing electrochemical devices are critically discussed in conjunction with future trends such as lab-on-a-chip and flexible sensors.

Six decades of lateral flow immunoassay: from determining metabolic markers to diagnosing COVID-19

Technologies based on lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), known in some countries of the world as immunochromatographic tests, have been successfully used for the last six decades in diagnostics of many diseases and conditions as they allow rapid detection of molecular ligands in biosubstrates. The popularity of these diagnostic platforms is constantly increasing in healthcare facilities, particularly those facing limited budgets and time, as well as in household use for individual health monitoring. The advantages of these low-cost devices over modern laboratory-based analyzers come from their availability, opportunity of rapid detection, and ease of use. The attractiveness of these portable diagnostic tools is associated primarily with their high analytical sensitivity and specificity, as well as with the easy visual readout of results. These qualities explain the growing popularity of LFIA in developing countries, when applied at small hospitals, in emergency situations where screening and monitoring health condition is crucially important, and as well as for self-testing of patients. These tools have passed the test of time, and now LFIA test systems are fully consistent with the world's modern concept of ‘point-of-care testing’, finding a wide range of applications not only in human medicine, but also in ecology, veterinary medicine, and agriculture. The extensive opportunities provided by LFIA contribute to the continuous development and improvement of this technology and to the creation of new-generation formats. This review will highlight the modern principles of design of the most widely used formats of test-systems for clinical laboratory diagnostics, summarize the main advantages and disadvantages of the method, as well as the current achievements and prospects of the LFIA technology. The latest innovations are aimed at improving the analytical performance of LFIA platforms for the diagnosis of bacterial and viral infections, including COVID-19.