Development and performance characteristics evaluation of a new Bioelectric Recognition Assay (BERA) method for rapid Sars-CoV-2 detection in clinical samples

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy Tests of COVID-19

In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to evaluate the reliability of coronavirus disease diagnostic tests in 2019 (COVID-19). This article seeks to describe the scientific discoveries made because of diagnostic tests conducted in recent years during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021, searches for published papers on the COVID-19 diagnostic were made in the PubMed database. Ninety-nine scientific articles that satisfied the requirements were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis, and the specificity and sensitivity of the diagnostic accuracy were assessed. When compared to serological tests such as the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA), molecular tests such as reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) performed better in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the area under the curve restricted to the false-positive rates (AUC_FPR) of 0.984 obtained by the antiviral neutralization bioassay (ANB) diagnostic test revealed significant potential for the identification of COVID-19. It has been established that the various diagnostic tests have been effectively adapted for the detection of SARS-CoV-2; nevertheless, their performance still must be enhanced to contain potential COVID-19 outbreaks, which will also help contain potential infectious agent outbreaks in the future.

Exposure to airborne SARS-CoV-2 in four hospital wards and ICUs of Cyprus. A detailed study accounting for day-to-day operations and aerosol generating procedures

In any infectious disease, understanding the modes of transmission is key to selecting effective public health measures. In the case of COVID-19 spread, the strictness of the imposed measures outlined the lack of understanding on how SARS-CoV-2 transmits, particularly via airborne pathways. With the aim to characterize the transmission dynamics of airborne SARS-CoV-2, 165 and 62 air and environmental samples, respectively, were collected in four COVID-19 wards and ICUs in Cyprus and analyzed by RT-PCR. An alternative method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in air that provides comparable results but is less cumbersome and time demanding, is also proposed. Considering that all clinics employed 14 regenerations per hour of full fresh air inside patient rooms, it was hypothesized that the viral levels and the frequency of positive samples would be minimum outside of the rooms. However, it is shown that leaving the door opened in patient rooms hinders the efficiency of the ventilation system applied, allowing the virus to escape. As a result, the highest observed viral levels (135 copies m^-3) were observed in the corridor of a ward and the frequency of positive samples in the same area was comparable to that inside a two-bed cohort. SARS-CoV-2 in that corridor was found primarily to lie in the coarse mode, at sizes between 1.8 and 10 μm. Similar to previous studies, the frequency of positive samples and viral levels were the lowest inside intensive care units. However, if a patient with sufficient viral load (Ct-value 31) underwent aerosol generating procedures, positive samples with viral levels below 45 copies m^-3 were acquired within a 2 m distance of the patient. Our results suggest that a robust ventilation system can prevent unnecessary exposure to SARS-CoV-2 but with limitations related to foot traffic or the operations taking place at the time.

Ultra-Fast and Sensitive Screening for Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 S1 Spike Antigen with a Portable Bioelectric Biosensor

As a consequence of the progress of the global vaccination against the COVID-19 disease, fast, accurate and affordable assays are needed for monitoring the efficiency of developing immunity against the coronavirus at the population level. In this context, we herewith report the proof-of-concept development of an innovative bioelectric biosensor for the ultra-detection (in less than three minutes) of IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike antigen. The biosensor comprises a disposable set of screen-printed electrodes upon which are immobilized cells engineered to bear the S1 protein on their surface. When anti-S1 antibodies are presented to the engineered cell population, a rapid, specific, and selective change of the cell membrane potential occurs; this is in turn recorded by a bespoke portable potentiometer. End results are communicated via Bluetooth to a smartphone equipped with a customized user interface. By using the novel biosensor, anti-S1 antibodies could be detected at concentrations as low as 5 ng/mL. In a preliminary clinical trial, positive results were derived from patients vaccinated or previously infected by the virus. Selectivity over other respiratory viruses was demonstrated by the lack of cross-reactivity to antibodies against rhinovirus. After further clinical validation and extension to also screen IgM, IgA and possible neutralizing antibodies, our approach is intended to facilitate the mass and reliable detection of antibodies in the early stages following vaccination and to monitor the duration and level of acquired immunity both in a clinical and self-testing environment.

Electronic and electrochemical viral detection for point-of-care use: A systematic review

Detecting viruses, which have significant impact on health and the economy, is essential for controlling and combating viral infections. In recent years there has been a focus towards simpler and faster detection methods, specifically through the use of electronic-based detection at the point-of-care. Point-of-care sensors play a particularly important role in the detection of viruses. Tests can be performed in the field or in resource limited regions in a simple manner and short time frame, allowing for rapid treatment. Electronic based detection allows for speed and quantitative detection not otherwise possible at the point-of-care. Such approaches are largely based upon voltammetry, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy, field effect transistors, and similar electrical techniques. Here, we systematically review electronic and electrochemical point-of-care sensors for the detection of human viral pathogens. Using the reported limits of detection and assay times we compare approaches both by detection method and by the target analyte of interest. Compared to recent scoping and narrative reviews, this systematic review which follows established best practice for evidence synthesis adds substantial new evidence on 1) performance and 2) limitations, needed for sensor uptake in the clinical arena. 104 relevant studies were identified by conducting a search of current literature using 7 databases, only including original research articles detecting human viruses and reporting a limit of detection. Detection units were converted to nanomolars where possible in order to compare performance across devices. This approach allows us to identify field effect transistors as having the fastest median response time, and as being the most sensitive, some achieving single-molecule detection. In general, we found that antigens are the quickest targets to detect. We also observe however, that reports are highly variable in their chosen metrics of interest. We suggest that this lack of systematisation across studies may be a major bottleneck in sensor development and translation. Where appropriate, we use the findings of the systematic review to give recommendations for best reporting practice.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Clinical Application of the Novel Cell-Based Biosensor for the Ultra-Rapid Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 Spike Protein Antigen: A Practical Approach

The availability of antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 represents a major step for the mass surveillance of the incidence of infection, especially regarding COVID-19 asymptomatic and/or early-stage patients. Recently, we reported the development of a Bioelectric Recognition Assay-based biosensor able to detect the SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike protein expressed on the surface of the virus in just three minutes, with high sensitivity and selectivity. The working principle was established by measuring the change of the electric potential of membrane-engineered mammalian cells bearing the human chimeric spike S1 antibody after attachment of the respective viral protein. In the present study, we applied the novel biosensor to patient-derived nasopharyngeal samples in a clinical set-up, with absolutely no sample pretreatment. More importantly, membrane-engineered cells were pre-immobilized in a proprietary biomatrix, thus enabling their long-term preservation prior to use as well as significantly increasing their ease-of-handle as test consumables. The plug-and-apply novel biosensor was able to detect the virus in positive samples with a 92.8% success rate compared to RT-PCR. No false negative results were recorded. These findings demonstrate the potential applicability of the biosensor for the early, routine mass screening of SARS-CoV-2 on a scale not yet realized.