Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays

Mechanism of Anti-Salmonella Rabbit Immunoglobulin Adsorption on Polymer Particles

The adsorption of anti-Salmonella rabbit immunoglobulin (IgaR) on negatively charged polymer particles leading to the formation of immunolatex was studied using various techniques comprising atomic force microscopy (AFM) and laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV). Initially, the basic physicochemical properties of IgaR molecules and the particles, inter alia their electrophoretic mobilities, the zeta potentials and hydrodynamic diameters, were determined under different ionic strengths and pHs. Applying AFM, single immunoglobulin molecules adsorbed on mica were also imaged, which allowed to determine their size. The adsorption of the IgaR molecules on the particles leading to changes in their electrophoretic mobility was monitored in situ using the LDV method. The obtained results were interpreted applying a general electrokinetic model which yielded quantitative information about the molecule coverage on the particles. The obtained immunolatex was thoroughly characterized with respect to its acid-base properties and its stability upon storage. Notably, the developed procedure demonstrated better efficiency compared to commercially applied methods, characterized by a higher immunoglobulin consumption.

Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 and Waning Humoral Immunity: A Case Report

Recovery from COVID-19 is associated with production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but it is uncertain whether these confer immunity. We describe viral RNA shedding duration in hospitalized patients and identify patients with recurrent shedding. We sequenced viruses from two distinct episodes of symptomatic COVID-19 separated by 144 days in a single patient, to conclusively describe reinfection with a different strain harboring the spike variant D614G. This case of reinfection was one of the first cases of reinfection reported in 2020. With antibody, B cell and T cell analytics, we show correlates of adaptive immunity at reinfection, including a differential response in neutralizing antibodies to a D614G pseudovirus. Finally, we discuss implications for vaccine programs and begin to define benchmarks for protection against reinfection from SARS-CoV-2.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among obstetric patients in Ottawa, Canada: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

There is limited information on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in obstetric settings in Canada, beyond the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February to June 2020). We sought to describe the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant people admitted to triage units at a tertiary care hospital in Ottawa, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive study of pregnant people admitted to obstetric triage assessment units at The Ottawa Hospital between Oct. 19 and Nov. 27, 2020 (second local wave of the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants underwent SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (via naso- or oropharyngeal swabs) and serology testing upon admission. We excluded individuals younger than 18 years, those who did not speak English or French, those who enrolled in conflicting studies, those admitted for pregnancy termination and those triaged between 11:31 pm and 7:29 am. Swab and serology samples were analyzed using digital droplet PCR and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, respectively. We defined SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity as a positive result for immunoglobulin (Ig) G, either alone or in combination with IgM or IgA.

RESULTS

Of the 632 eligible patients, 363 (57.4%) consented to participation and 362 collectively provided 284 swab and 352 blood samples eligible for analysis. Common reasons for declining participation included feeling overwhelmed or anxious, being worried about repercussions of testing, pain or discomfort with testing or disinterest in research. Participants were mostly multiparous (53.9%) and in their third trimester upon admission (88.4%). In all, 18 (4.9%) participants had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 2 (0.7%) of 284 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and 16 (4.5%) of 352 were positive for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

INTERPRETATION

During the second local wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of active SARS-CoV-2 infection among obstetric patients in Ottawa was 0.7% and seroprevalence was 4.5%. Our low participation rate highlights the need for improvements in patient education and public health messaging on the benefits of SARS-CoV-2 testing programs.

Antibody-Invertase Fusion Protein Enables Quantitative Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Using Widely Available Glucometers

Rapid diagnostics that can accurately inform patients of disease risk and protection are critical to mitigating the spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic and future infectious disease outbreaks. To be effective, such diagnostics must rely on simple, cost-effective, and widely available equipment and should be compatible with existing telehealth infrastructure to facilitate data access and remote care. Commercial glucometers are an established detection technology that can overcome the cost, time, and trained personnel requirements of current benchtop-based antibody serology assays when paired with reporter molecules that catalyze glucose conversion. To this end, we developed an enzymatic reporter that, when bound to disease-specific patient antibodies, produces glucose in proportion to the level of antibodies present in the patient sample. Although a straightforward concept, the coupling of enzymatic reporters to secondary antibodies or antigens often results in low yields, indeterminant stoichiometry, reduced target binding, and poor catalytic efficiency. Our enzymatic reporter is a novel fusion protein that comprises an antihuman immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody genetically fused to two invertase molecules. The resulting fusion protein retains the binding affinity and catalytic activity of the constituent proteins and serves as an accurate reporter for immunoassays. Using this fusion, we demonstrate quantitative glucometer-based measurement of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies in blinded clinical sample training sets. Our results demonstrate the ability to detect SARS-CoV-2-specific IgGs in patient serum with precise agreement to benchmark commercial immunoassays. Because our fusion protein binds all human IgG isotypes, it represents a versatile tool for detection of disease-specific antibodies in a broad range of biomedical applications.

Sero-surveillance for IgG to SARS-CoV-2 at antenatal care clinics in three Kenyan referral hospitals: Repeated cross-sectional surveys 2020-21

INTRODUCTION

The high proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections that have remained undetected presents a challenge to tracking the progress of the pandemic and estimating the extent of population immunity.

METHODS

We used residual blood samples from women attending antenatal care services at three hospitals in Kenya between August 2020 and October 2021and a validated IgG ELISA for SARS-Cov-2 spike protein and adjusted the results for assay sensitivity and specificity. We fitted a two-component mixture model as an alternative to the threshold analysis to estimate of the proportion of individuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

We estimated seroprevalence in 2,981 women; 706 in Nairobi, 567 in Busia and 1,708 in Kilifi. By October 2021, 13% of participants were vaccinated (at least one dose) in Nairobi, 2% in Busia. Adjusted seroprevalence rose in all sites; from 50% (95%CI 42-58) in August 2020, to 85% (95%CI 78-92) in October 2021 in Nairobi; from 31% (95%CI 25-37) in May 2021 to 71% (95%CI 64-77) in October 2021 in Busia; and from 1% (95% CI 0-3) in September 2020 to 63% (95% CI 56-69) in October 2021 in Kilifi. Mixture modelling, suggests adjusted cross-sectional prevalence estimates are underestimates; seroprevalence in October 2021 could be 74% in Busia and 72% in Kilifi.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been substantial, unobserved transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Nairobi, Busia and Kilifi Counties. Due to the length of time since the beginning of the pandemic, repeated cross-sectional surveys are now difficult to interpret without the use of models to account for antibody waning.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: COVID-19 research in pregnancy: progress and potential

The COVID-19 global pandemic has broad implications for obstetrical care and perinatal outcomes. As we approach the 2-year mark into an unprecedented international pandemic, this review presents the progress and opportunities for research related to COVID-19 and pregnancy. Research is the basis for evidence-based clinical guidelines, and we aim to provide the structure and guidance for framing COVID-19-related obstetrical research. This structure will pertain not only to this pandemic but future ones as well.

Valorisation of CO2 into Value-Added Products via Microbial Electrosynthesis (MES) and Electro-Fermentation Technology

Microbial electrocatalysis reckons on microbes as catalysts for reactions occurring at electrodes. Microbial fuel cells and microbial electrolysis cells are well-known in this context; both prefer the oxidation of organic and inorganic matter for producing electricity. Notably, the synthesis of high energy-density chemicals (fuels) or their precursors by microorganisms using bio-cathode to yield electrical energy is called Microbial Electrosynthesis (MES), giving an exceptionally appealing novel way for producing beneficial products from electricity and wastewater. This review accentuates the concept, importance and opportunities of MES, as an emerging discipline at the nexus of microbiology and electrochemistry. Production of organic compounds from MES is considered as an effective technique for the generation of various beneficial reduced end-products (like acetate and butyrate) as well as in reducing the load of CO2 from the atmosphere to mitigate the harmful effect of greenhouse gases in global warming. Although MES is still an emerging technology, this method is not thoroughly known. The authors have focused on MES, as it is the next transformative, viable alternative technology to decrease the repercussions of surplus carbon dioxide in the environment along with conserving energy.

Feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in Remote Outpatient Trials

Background

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical trials necessitated rapid testing to be performed remotely. Dried blood spot (DBS) techniques have enabled remote HIV virologic testing globally, and more recently, antibody testing as well. We evaluated DBS testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in outpatients to assess seropositivity.

Methods

In 2020, we conducted 3 internet-based randomized clinical trials and offered serologic testing via self-collected DBS as a voluntary substudy. COVID-19 diagnosis was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition with epidemiological link to cases. A minority reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at an outside facility. We tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin via antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP) and compared the results with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results

Of 2727 participants in the primary studies, 60% (1648/2727) consented for serology testing; 56% (931/1648) returned a usable DBS sample. Of those who were asymptomatic, 5% (33/707) had positive ADAP serology. Of participants with a positive PCR, 67% (36/54) had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. None of those who were PCR-positive and asymptomatic were seropositive (0/7). Of 77 specimens tested for concordance via ELISA, 83% (64/77) were concordant. The challenges of completing a remote testing program during a pandemic included sourcing and assembling collection kits, delivery and return of the kits, and troubleshooting testing. Self-collection was successful for >95% of participants. Delays in US mail with possible sample degradation and timing of DBS collection complicated the analysis.

Conclusions

We found remote antibody testing during a global pandemic feasible although challenging. We identified an association between symptomatic COVID-19 and positive antibody results at a similar prevalence as other outpatient cohorts.

Quantitative Detection of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Using Indirect ELISA

Objective

Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but it is necessary to utilize other tests to determine the burden of the disease and the spread of the outbreak such as IgG-, IgM-, and IgA-based antibody detection using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Materials and Methods

We developed an indirect ELISA assay to quantitatively measure the amount of COVID-19 IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies present in patient serum, dried blood, and plasma.

Results

The population cutoff values for positivity were determined by receiver operating characteristic curves to be 1.23 U/mL, 23.09 U/mL, and 6.36 U/mL for IgG, IgM, and IgA, respectively. After albumin subtraction, the specificity remained >98% and the sensitivity was 95.72%, 83.47%, and 82.60%, respectively, for IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies to the combined spike subunit 1 receptor binding domain and N proteins in serum. Plasma and dried blood spot specimens were also validated on this assay.

Conclusion

This assay may be used for determining the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a population exposed to the virus or in vaccinated individuals.

Rapid antibody diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 adaptive immune response

The emergence of a pandemic scale respiratory illness (COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019) and the lack of the world's readiness to prevent its spread resulted in an unprecedented rise of biomedical diagnostic industries, as they took lead to provide efficient diagnostic solutions for COVID-19. However, these circumstances also led to numerous emergency use authorizations without appropriate evaluation that compromised standards, which could result in a larger than usual number of false-positive or false-negative results, leading to unwanted ambiguity in already confusing realities of the pandemic-hit closures of the world economy. This review is aimed at comparing the claimed or reported clinical sensitivity and clinical specificity of commercially available rapid antibody diagnostics with independently evaluated clinical performance results of the tests. Thereby, we not only present the types of modern antibody diagnostics and their working principles but summarize their experimental evaluations and observed clinical efficiencies to highlight the research, development, and commercialization issues with future challenges. Still, it must be emphasized that the serological or antibody tests do not serve the purpose of early diagnosis but are more suitable for epidemiology and screening populaces with an active immune response, recognizing convalescent plasma donors, and determining vaccine efficacy.

Development and Evaluation of Quantitative Immunoglobulin G Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for the Diagnosis of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Using Truncated Recombinant Nucleocapsid Protein as Assay Antigen

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Real-time RT-PCR is the most commonly used method for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, serological assays are urgently needed as complementary tools to RT-PCR. Hachim et al. 2020 and Burbelo et al. 2020 demonstrated that anti-nucleocapsid(N) SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are higher and appear earlier than the spike antibodies. Additionally, cross-reactive antibodies against N protein are more prevalent than those against spike protein. We developed a less cross-reactive immunoglobulin G (IgG) indirect ELISA by using a truncated recombinant SARS-CoV-2 N protein as assay antigen. A highly conserved region of coronaviruses N protein was deleted and the protein was prepared using an E. coli protein expression system. A total of 177 samples collected from COVID-19 suspected cases and 155 negative control sera collected during the pre-COVID-19 period were applied to evaluate the assay's performance, with the plaque reduction neutralization test and the commercial SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG ELISA as gold standards. The SARS-CoV-2 N truncated protein-based ELISA showed similar sensitivity (91.1% vs. 91.9%) and specificity (93.8% vs. 93.8%) between the PRNT and spike IgG ELISA, as well as also higher specificity compared to the full-length N protein (93.8% vs. 89.9%). Our ELISA can be used for the diagnosis and surveillance of COVID-19.

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 comparative review of immunoassays for COVID-19 detection

Introduction: The gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is expensive, time-consuming and may result in false-negative results. Serological tests can be employed for RT-PCR negative patients, contact tracing, determining the probability of protection against re-infection, and seroepidemiological studies.Areas covered: The main methodologies of serology-based tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) were reviewed and their diagnostic performances were compared. Herein, a literature review on the databases of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 based on the main serological methods for COVID-19 detection with the focus on comparative experiments was performed. The review was updated on December 31, 2020.Expert opinion: Serology testing could be considered as a part of diagnostic panel two-week post symptom onset. Higher sensitivity for serology-based tests could be achieved by determining combined IgG/IgM titers. Furthermore, higher sensitive serological test detecting neutralization antibody could be developed by targeting spike (S) antigen. It was also demonstrated that the sensitivity of ELISA/CLIA-based methods are higher than LFIA devices.

Diagnostic Accuracy Estimates for COVID-19 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction and Lateral Flow Immunoassay Tests With Bayesian Latent-Class Models

Our objective was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), depending on the time after symptom onset. Based on the cross-classified results of RT-PCR and LFIA, we used Bayesian latent-class models, which do not require a gold standard for the evaluation of diagnostics. Data were extracted from studies that evaluated LFIA (immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or immunoglobulin M (IgM)) assays using RT-PCR as the reference method. The sensitivity of RT-PCR was 0.68 (95% probability interval (PrI): 0.63, 0.73). IgG/M sensitivity was 0.32 (95% PrI :0.23; 0.41) for the first week and increased steadily. It was 0.75 (95% PrI: 0.67; 0.83) and 0.93 (95% PrI: 0.88; 0.97) for the second and third weeks after symptom onset, respectively. Both tests had a high to absolute specificity, with higher point median estimates for RT-PCR specificity and narrower probability intervals. The specificity of RT-PCR was 0.99 (95% PrI: 0.98; 1.00). and the specificity of IgG/IgM was 0.97 (95% PrI: 0.92, 1.00), 0.98 (95% PrI: 0.95, 1.00) and 0.98 (95% PrI: 0.94, 1.00) for the first, second, and third weeks after symptom onset. The diagnostic accuracy of LFIA varies with time after symptom onset. Bayesian latent-class models provide a valid and efficient alternative for evaluating the rapidly evolving diagnostics for COVID-19, under various clinical settings and different risk profiles.

Evaluation and Comparison of Serological Methods for COVID-19 Diagnosis

The worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 has become a global public health crisis. Various clinical diagnosis methods have been developed to distinguish COVID-19-infected patients from healthy people. The nucleic acid test is the golden standard for virus detection as it is suitable for early diagnosis. However, due to the low amount of viral nucleic acid in the respiratory tract, the sensitivity of nucleic acid detection is unsatisfactory. As a result, serological screening began to be widely used with the merits of simple procedures, lower cost, and shorter detection time. Serological tests currently include the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). This review describes various serological methods, discusses the performance and diagnostic effects of different methods, and points out the problems and the direction of optimization, to improve the efficiency of clinical diagnosis. These increasingly sophisticated and diverse serological diagnostic technologies will help human beings to control the spread of COVID-19.

Epitope-specific antibody responses differentiate COVID-19 outcomes and variants of concern

BACKGROUNDThe role of humoral immunity in COVID-19 is not fully understood, owing, in large part, to the complexity of antibodies produced in response to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is a pressing need for serology tests to assess patient-specific antibody response and predict clinical outcome.METHODSUsing SARS-CoV-2 proteome and peptide microarrays, we screened 146 COVID-19 patients' plasma samples to identify antigens and epitopes. This enabled us to develop a master epitope array and an epitope-specific agglutination assay to gauge antibody responses systematically and with high resolution.RESULTSWe identified linear epitopes from the spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins and showed that the epitopes enabled higher resolution antibody profiling than the S or N protein antigen. Specifically, we found that antibody responses to the S-811-825, S-881-895, and N-156-170 epitopes negatively or positively correlated with clinical severity or patient survival. Moreover, we found that the P681H and S235F mutations associated with the coronavirus variant of concern B.1.1.7 altered the specificity of the corresponding epitopes.CONCLUSIONEpitope-resolved antibody testing not only affords a high-resolution alternative to conventional immunoassays to delineate the complex humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate between neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies, but it also may potentially be used to predict clinical outcome. The epitope peptides can be readily modified to detect antibodies against variants of concern in both the peptide array and latex agglutination formats.FUNDINGOntario Research Fund (ORF) COVID-19 Rapid Research Fund, Toronto COVID-19 Action Fund, Western University, Lawson Health Research Institute, London Health Sciences Foundation, and Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario (AMOSO) Innovation Fund.

Sensitivities and specificities of Anti-SARS CoV2 detection kits - comparison and agreement between fifteen assays

The correct and rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is vital for proper care and identification of affected individuals. This led to the early availability of many serological assays in the market but with limited validations. This study aimed to assess the validation of the serological assays based on different techniques. We evaluated fifteen assays based on four different immunoassay techniques on 235 patients. The most sensitive kit employing different techniques were as follows: immunochromatography (Zybio SARS CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Assay Kit: 83%), ELISA (Aeskulisa SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG -88.1%), chemiluminescence (Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG - 82.2%) and immunofluorescence (Lifotronic FA160 [Shenzhen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Kit (IgG)] -88.9%). 100% specificity was seen in kits by Uniper (Singuway Biotec COVID-19 IgM/IgG Presumptive Kit), Genrui 2019-nCoV IgM/IgG Test Kit, Wondfu SARS CoV-2 Antibody Test and Aeskulisa SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG while IgG assay on Lifotronic FA160 (Shenzhen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Kit) showed the lowest specificity at 58%. Maximum agreement was observed between Aeskulisa SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG and Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 94%. Serological tests are practical alternatives but their reliability requires critical validation. The pandemic pointed a need for investment in health research on both national and international levels.

Vertical Flow Cellulose-Based Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection in Human Serum

Rapid and inexpensive serological tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are essential to conduct large-scale seroprevalence surveys and can potentially complement nucleic acid or antigen tests at the point of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme demand for traditional lateral flow tests has stressed manufacturing capacity and supply chains. Motivated by this limitation, we developed a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test using cellulose, an alternative membrane material, and a double-antigen sandwich format. Functionalized SARS-CoV-2 antigens were used as both capture and reporter binders, replacing the anti-human antibodies currently used in lateral flow tests. The test could provide enhanced sensitivity because it labels only antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and the signal intensity is not diminished due to other human antibodies in serum. Three-dimensional channels in the assay were designed to have consistent flow rates and be easily manufactured by folding wax-printed paper. We demonstrated that this simple, vertical flow, cellulose-based assay could detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical samples within 15 min, and the results were consistent with those from a laboratory, bead-based chemiluminescence immunoassay that was granted emergency use approval by the US FDA.

A statistical model of COVID-19 testing in populations: effects of sampling bias and testing errors

We develop a statistical model for the testing of disease prevalence in a population. The model assumes a binary test result, positive or negative, but allows for biases in sample selection and both type I (false positive) and type II (false negative) testing errors. Our model also incorporates multiple test types and is able to distinguish between retesting and exclusion after testing. Our quantitative framework allows us to directly interpret testing results as a function of errors and biases. By applying our testing model to COVID-19 testing data and actual case data from specific jurisdictions, we are able to estimate and provide uncertainty quantification of indices that are crucial in a pandemic, such as disease prevalence and fatality ratios.

Analytical Validation and Clinical Application of Rapid Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Suitable for Large-Scale Screening

Recently, large-scale screening for COVID-19 has presented a major challenge, limiting timely countermeasures. Therefore, the application of suitable rapid serological tests could provide useful information, however, little evidence regarding their robustness is currently available. In this work, we evaluated and compared the analytical performance of a rapid lateral-flow test (LFA) and a fast semiquantitative fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) for anti-nucleocapsid (anti-NC) antibodies, with the reverse transcriptase real-time PCR assay as the reference. In 222 patients, LFA showed poor sensitivity (55.9%) within two weeks from PCR, while later testing was more reliable (sensitivity of 85.7% and specificity of 93.1%). Moreover, in a subset of 100 patients, FIA showed high sensitivity (89.1%) and specificity (94.1%) after two weeks from PCR. The coupled application for the screening of 183 patients showed satisfactory concordance (K = 0.858). In conclusion, rapid serological tests were largely not useful for early diagnosis, but they showed good performance in later stages of infection. These could be useful for back-tracing and/or to identify potentially immune subjects.

Recent advances in the diagnosis of COVID-19: a bird's eye view

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic is still escalating and has shaped an extraordinary and pressing need for rapid diagnostics with high sensitivity and specificity. Prompt diagnosis is the key to mitigate this situation. As several diagnostic tools for COVID-19 are already available and others are still under development, mandating a comprehensive review of the efficacy of existing tools and evaluate the potential of others.

AREAS COVERED

Currently explored platforms for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and surveillance centered on qRT-PCR, RT-PCR, CRISPR, microarray, LAMP, lateral flow immunoassays, proteomics-based approaches, and radiological scans are overviewed and summarized in this review along with their advantages and downsides. A narrative literature review was carried out by accessing the freely available online databases to encapsulate the developments in medical diagnostics.

EXPERT OPINION

An ideal detection method should be sensitive, specific, rapid, cost-effective, and should allow early diagnosis of the infection as near as possible to the point of care that could alter the current situation for the better. Medical diagnostics is a highly dynamic field as no diagnostic method available for SARS-CoV-2 detection offers a perfect solution and requires more attention and continuous R&D to challenge the present-day pandemic situation.

Novel ELISA Protocol Links Pre-Existing SARS-CoV-2 Reactive Antibodies With Endemic Coronavirus Immunity and Age and Reveals Improved Serologic Identification of Acute COVID-19 via Multi-Parameter Detection

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically impacted work, economy, and way of life. Sensitive measurement of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies would provide new insight into pre-existing immunity, virus transmission dynamics, and the nuances of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. To date, existing SARS-CoV-2 serology tests have limited utility due to insufficient reliable detection of antibody levels lower than what is typically present after several days of symptoms. To measure lower quantities of SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgG, and IgA with higher resolution than existing assays, we developed a new ELISA protocol with a distinct plate washing procedure and timed plate development via use of a standard curve. Very low optical densities from samples added to buffer coated wells at as low as a 1:5 dilution are reported using this 'BU ELISA' method. Use of this method revealed circulating SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid protein (N) reactive antibodies (IgG, IgM, and/or IgA) in 44 and 100 percent of pre-pandemic subjects, respectively, and the magnitude of these antibodies tracked with antibody levels of analogous viral proteins from endemic coronavirus (eCoV) strains. The disease status (HIV, SLE) of unexposed subjects was not linked with SARS-CoV-2 reactive antibody levels; however, quantities were significantly lower in subjects over 70 years of age compared with younger counterparts. Also, we measured SARS-CoV-2 RBD- and N- specific IgM, IgG, and IgA antibodies from 29 SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals at varying disease states, including 10 acute COVID-19 hospitalized subjects with negative serology results by the EUA approved Abbott IgG chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Measurements of SARS-CoV-2 RBD- and N- specific IgM, IgG, IgA levels measured by the BU ELISA revealed higher signal from 9 of the 10 Abbott test negative COVID-19 subjects than all pre-pandemic samples for at least one antibody specificity/isotype, implicating improved serologic identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection via multi-parameter, high sensitive antibody detection. We propose that this improved ELISA protocol, which is straightforward to perform, low cost, and uses readily available commercial reagents, is a useful tool to elucidate new information about SARS-CoV-2 infection and immunity and has promising implications for improved detection of all analytes measurable by this platform.

Self-sampling of capillary blood for SARS-CoV-2 serology

Serological testing is emerging as a powerful tool to progress our understanding of COVID-19 exposure, transmission and immune response. Large-scale testing is limited by the need for in-person blood collection by staff trained in venepuncture, and the limited sensitivity of lateral flow tests. Capillary blood self-sampling and postage to laboratories for analysis could provide a reliable alternative. Two-hundred and nine matched venous and capillary blood samples were obtained from thirty nine participants and analysed using a COVID-19 IgG ELISA to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Thirty eight out of thirty nine participants were able to self-collect an adequate sample of capillary blood (≥ 50 µl). Using plasma from venous blood collected in lithium heparin as the reference standard, matched capillary blood samples, collected in lithium heparin-treated tubes and on filter paper as dried blood spots, achieved a Cohen’s kappa coefficient of > 0.88 (near-perfect agreement, 95% CI 0.738–1.000). Storage of capillary blood at room temperature for up to 7 days post sampling did not affect concordance. Our results indicate that capillary blood self-sampling is a reliable and feasible alternative to venepuncture for serological assessment in COVID-19.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 via PCR and serological testing in asymptomatic healthcare workers

The prevalence and seroconversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic health care workers in the US is unclear. Our study utilized real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 testing and serological evaluation to detect IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 antigens in asymptomatic health care workers. A total of 197 subjects with a mean age of 35 years were recruited into the study. While most (67%) reported prolonged contact with known COVID-19 patients, only 8 (4.2%) tested positive on RT-PCR and 23 (11.7%) had detectable levels of IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2. Out of 19 subjects with detectable IgG antibody at week 1, 11 (57.9%) lost their antibody response by week 3. No statistically significant difference was found in baseline characteristics or exposure status between subjects with positive and negative results on RT-PCR or antibody positivity. In conclusion, we found a low incidence of PCR positivity for SARS-CoV-2 in a high-risk group. This likely demonstrates the effectiveness of proper personal protective equipment use and low transmission risk in health care settings. The detectable IgG antibody titer was low, and a significant portion of subjects lost their antibody response on repeat testing. This may mean that antibody response in asymptomatic patients is categorically different than in symptomatic hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Rapid point-of-care testing for COVID-19: quality of supportive information for lateral flow serology assays

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of evidence addressing several important human factors questions pertaining to the quality of supportive information provided by commercial manufacturers that can affect the adoption and use of lateral flow serology assays in practice. We aimed to: (1) identify and assess the quality of information that commercial manufacturers provided for their point-of-care tests (POCTs) and (2) examine the implications of these findings on real-world settings.

DESIGN

We used a content analysis methodology in two stages to systematically, code and analyse textual data from documents of commercial manufacturers. A deductive approach was applied using a coding guide based on the validated Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool (POCKET) multidimensional checklist. An inductive approach was used to identify new patterns or themes generated from our textual analysis.

SETTING

Publicly available supportive information documents by commercial manufacturers for lateral flow serology, were identified and gathered from online searches.

PARTICIPANTS

Supportive information documents retrieved from online searches over 3 months (March 2020 to June 2020).

RESULTS

A total of 79 POCTs were identified that met the study inclusion criteria. Using the POCKET coding guide, we found that the quality of information varied significantly between the manufacturers and was often lacking in detail. Our inductive approach further examined these topics and found that several statements were vague and that significant variations in the level of details existed between manufacturers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed significant concerns surrounding the supportive information reported by manufacturers for lateral flow serology assays. Information transparency was poor and human factor issues were not properly addressed to mitigate the risk of improper device use, although it should be noted that the results of our study are limited by the data that manufactures were prepared to disclose. Overall, commercial manufacturers should improve the quality and value of information presented in their supporting documentation.

Diagnosis for COVID-19: current status and future prospects

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory illness caused by novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), had its first detection in December 2019 in Wuhan (China) and spread across the world. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic disease. The utilization of prompt and accurate molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus, isolating the infected patients, and treating them are the keys to managing this unprecedented pandemic. International travel acted as a catalyst for the widespread transmission of the virus.Areas covered: This review discusses phenotype, structural, and molecular evolution of recognition elements and primers, its detection in the laboratory, and at point of care. Further, market analysis of commercial products and their performance are also evaluated, providing new ways to confront the ongoing global public health emergency.Expert commentary: The outbreak for COVID-19 created mammoth chaos in the healthcare sector, and still, day by day, new epicenters for the outbreak are being reported. Emphasis should be placed on developing more effective, rapid, and early diagnostic devices. The testing laboratories should invest more in clinically relevant multiplexed and scalable detection tools to fight against a pandemic like this where massive demand for testing exists.

A highly specific and sensitive serological assay detects SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in COVID-19 patients that correlate with neutralization

OBJECTIVE

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic challenges national health systems and the global economy. Monitoring of infection rates and seroprevalence can guide public health measures to combat the pandemic. This depends on reliable tests on active and former infections. Here, we set out to develop and validate a specific and sensitive enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels.

METHODS

In our ELISA, we used SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) and a stabilized version of the spike (S) ectodomain as antigens. We assessed sera from patients infected with seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 and controls. We determined and monitored IgM-, IgA- and IgG-antibody responses towards these antigens. In addition, for a panel of 22 sera, virus neutralization and ELISA parameters were measured and correlated.

RESULTS

The RBD-based ELISA detected SARS-CoV-2-directed antibodies, did not cross-react with seasonal coronavirus antibodies and correlated with virus neutralization (R2 = 0.89). Seroconversion started at 5 days after symptom onset and led to robust antibody levels at 10 days after symptom onset. We demonstrate high specificity (99.3%; N = 1000) and sensitivity (92% for IgA, 96% for IgG and 98% for IgM; > 10 days after PCR-proven infection; N = 53) in serum.

CONCLUSIONS

With the described RBD-based ELISA protocol, we provide a reliable test for seroepidemiological surveys. Due to high specificity and strong correlation with virus neutralization, the RBD ELISA holds great potential to become a preferred tool to assess thresholds of protective immunity after infection and vaccination.

Validation and performance comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays

Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID-2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross-reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre-pandemic samples. SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3-4 days post-symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5-6 days post-onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post-onset. After 14 days post-symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR-confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross-reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross-reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies.

A Multiplex Microsphere IgG Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Using ACE2-Mediated Inhibition as a Surrogate for Neutralization

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the challenges inherent to the serological detection of a novel pathogen such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Serological tests can be used diagnostically and for surveillance, but their usefulness depends on their throughput, sensitivity, and specificity. Here, we describe a multiplex fluorescent microsphere-based assay, 3Flex, that can detect antibodies to three major SARS-CoV-2 antigens—spike (S) protein, the spike ACE2 receptor-binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid (NP).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the challenges inherent to the serological detection of a novel pathogen such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Serological tests can be used diagnostically and for surveillance, but their usefulness depends on their throughput, sensitivity, and specificity. Here, we describe a multiplex fluorescent microsphere-based assay, 3Flex, that can detect antibodies to three major SARS-CoV-2 antigens—spike (S) protein, the spike ACE2 receptor-binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid (NP). Specificity was assessed using 213 prepandemic samples. Sensitivity was measured and compared to that of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay using serum samples from 125 unique patients equally binned (n = 25) into 5 time intervals (≤5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20, and ≥21 days from symptom onset). With samples obtained at ≤5 days from symptom onset, the 3Flex assay was more sensitive (48.0% versus 32.0%), but the two assays performed comparably using serum obtained ≥21 days from symptom onset. A larger collection (n = 534) of discarded sera was profiled from patients (n = 140) whose COVID-19 course was characterized through chart review. This revealed the relative rise, peak (S, 23.8; RBD, 23.6; NP, 16.7 [in days from symptom onset]), and decline of the antibody response. Considerable interperson variation was observed with a subset of extensively sampled intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Using soluble ACE2, inhibition of antibody binding was demonstrated for S and RBD, and not for NP. Taking the data together, this study described the performance of an assay built on a flexible and high-throughput serological platform that proved adaptable to the emergence of a novel infectious agent.

Evaluating 10 Commercially Available SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Serological Tests by Use of the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) Method

Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) methodology. Two hundred fifty serum samples from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected 0 to 32 days after the onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control serum samples (n = 254) were retrieved from pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (n  = 11), positivity for rheumatoid factors (n  = 3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (n  = 9), malaria (n = 5), or no documented viral infection (n  = 226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) from 10 manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with the specificities ranging from 75.7% to 99.2%. The sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection after the onset of symptoms, from 31.7% to 55.4% (days 0 to 9), 65.9% to 92.9% (days 10 to 14), and 81.0% to 95.2% (>14 days). Only three of the tests evaluated met French health authorities' thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity and ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances varied greatly between tests, with only one-third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowledge of the analytical performances of these tests will allow clinicians and, most importantly, laboratorians to use them with more confidence; could help determine the general population's immunological status; and may help diagnose some patients with false-negative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) results.

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point-of-Care Testing

Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparisons of these assays. The performances of 15 different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were compared on a well-characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (collected an average of 45 days after symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the prepandemic era (negative control) that were known to represent infections with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, and C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, and NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed using five lateral flow assays (LFAs) and a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients for whom the time since symptom onset was known. Among the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55% to 97% and from 78% to 100%, respectively. Assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 88% and 80% to 100% for IgM and from 25% to 95% and 90% to 100% for IgG, respectively. Longitudinal testing revealed that the median times after symptom onset to a positive result were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4 to 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR, 6.3 to 11.3) for IgG. The testing performances differed widely among LFAs, with greatest amount of variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was the band most likely to misclassify prepandemic samples. The appearances of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.

Estimating under-reporting of COVID-19 cases in Indian states: an approach using a delay-adjusted case fatality ratio

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread to all states in India. Due to limitations in testing coverage, the true extent of the spread may not be fully reflected in the reported cases. In this study, we obtain time-varying estimates of the fraction of COVID-19 infections reported in the different states.

METHODS

Following a methodology developed in prior work, we use a delay-adjusted case fatality ratio to estimate the true fraction of cases reported in different states. We also develop a delay adjusted test positivity estimation method and study the relationship between the estimated test positivity rate for each state and the estimated fraction of cases reported.

SETTING

We apply this method of analysis to all Indian states reporting at least 100 deaths as of 10 October 2020.

RESULTS

Our analysis suggests that delay-adjusted case fatality ratios observed in different states range from 0.47% to 3.55%. The estimated fraction of cases reported in different states ranges from 39% to 100% for an assumed baseline case fatality ratio of 1.38%, from 18.6% to 100% for an assumed baseline case fatality ratio of 0.66%, and from 2.8% to 19.7% for an assumed baseline case fatality ratio of 0.1%. We also demonstrate a statistically significant negative relationship between the fraction of cases reported in each state and the testing positivity rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimates provide a means to quantify and compare the trends of reporting and the true level of current infections in different states. This information may be used to guide policies for prioritising testing in different states, and also to analyse the time-varying effects of different quarantine measures adopted in different states.

Bidirectional contact tracing could dramatically improve COVID-19 control

Contact tracing is critical to controlling COVID-19, but most protocols only "forward-trace" to notify people who were recently exposed. Using a stochastic branching-process model, we find that "bidirectional" tracing to identify infector individuals and their other infectees robustly improves outbreak control. In our model, bidirectional tracing more than doubles the reduction in effective reproduction number (Reff) achieved by forward-tracing alone, while dramatically increasing resilience to low case ascertainment and test sensitivity. The greatest gains are realised by expanding the manual tracing window from 2 to 6 days pre-symptom-onset or, alternatively, by implementing high-uptake smartphone-based exposure notification; however, to achieve the performance of the former approach, the latter requires nearly all smartphones to detect exposure events. With or without exposure notification, our results suggest that implementing bidirectional tracing could dramatically improve COVID-19 control.

Current advances in the detection of COVID-19 and evaluation of the humoral response

The new outbreak caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 started at the end of 2019 and was declared a pandemic in March 2020. Since then, several diagnostic approaches have been re-adapted, and also improved from the previous detections of SARS and MERS coronavirus. The best strategy to handle this situation seems to rely on a triad of detection methods: (i) highly sensitive and specific techniques as the gold standard method, (ii) easier and faster point of care tests accessible for large population screening, and (iii) serology assays to complement the direct detection and to use for surveillance. In this study, we assessed the techniques and tests described in the literature, their advantages and disadvantages, and the interpretation of the results. Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is undoubtedly the gold standard technique utilized not only for diagnostics, but also as a standard for comparison and validation of newer approaches. Other nucleic acid amplification methods have been shown to be adequate as point of care (POC) diagnostic tests with similar performance as RT-qPCR. The analysis of seroconversion with immunotests shows the complexity of the immune response to COVID-19. The detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can also help to detect previously infected asymptomatic individuals with negative RT-qPCR tests. Nevertheless, more controlled serology cohort studies should be performed as soon as possible to understand the immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

The Main Molecular and Serological Methods for Diagnosing COVID-19: An Overview Based on the Literature

Diagnostic tests have been considered as the main alternative for the control of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as a correct diagnosis allows for decision making when facing the disease, particularly as there is a lack of effective therapeutic protocols and vaccines. Thus, in this review, we summarized the main diagnostic approaches currently available for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans based on studies available in article databases. The tests can be organized into two main categories: nucleic acid-based tests, recommended for the initial detection of the virus, and serological tests, recommended for assessing the disease progression. The studies have shown that the performance of diagnostic methods depends on different factors, such as the type of samples and the characteristics of each assay. It was identified that the positivity of the tests is mainly related to the onset of symptoms. We also observed that point-of-care diagnoses are considered as one of the main trends in this area, due to the low-cost and simplicity of the assay; however, the analytical performance must be critically analyzed. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the critical role of diagnostic technologies in the control of infectious diseases.

On the Challenges for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Based on a Review of Current Methodologies

Diagnosis of COVID-19 has been challenging owing to the need for mass testing and for combining distinct types of detection to cover the different stages of the infection. In this review, we have surveyed the most used methodologies for diagnosis of COVID-19, which can be basically categorized into genetic-material detection and immunoassays. Detection of genetic material with real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and similar techniques has been achieved with high accuracy, but these methods are expensive and require time-consuming protocols which are not widely available, especially in less developed countries. Immunoassays for detecting a few antibodies, on the other hand, have been used for rapid, less expensive tests, but their accuracy in diagnosing infected individuals has been limited. We have therefore discussed the strengths and limitations of all of these methodologies, particularly in light of the required combination of tests owing to the long incubation periods. We identified the bottlenecks that prevented mass testing in many countries, and proposed strategies for further action, which are mostly associated with materials science and chemistry. Of special relevance are the methodologies which can be integrated into point-of-care (POC) devices and the use of artificial intelligence that do not require products from a well-developed biotech industry.

A Risk-Based Screening Approach to Patients Needing Surgery During the De-Escalation Phase of COVID-19 Pandemic

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, many national and international surgical societies have produced guidelines regarding the management of surgical patients. During the mitigation phase of the pandemic, most documents suggested to consider postponing elective procedures, unless this might have impacted the life expectancy of patients. As awareness and knowledge about COVID-19 are gradually increasing, and as we enter a phase when surgical services are resuming their activities, surgical strategies have to adapt to this rapidly evolving scenario. This is particularly relevant when considering screening policies and the associated findings. We herein describe a risk-based approach to the management of patients with surgical diseases, which might be useful in order to limit the risks for healthcare workers and patients, while allowing for resuming elective surgical practice safely.

Humoral Responses and Serological Assays in SARS-CoV-2 Infections

In December 2019, the novel betacoronavirus Severe Acute Respiratory Disease Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first detected in Wuhan, China. SARS-CoV-2 has since become a pandemic virus resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and deep socioeconomic implications worldwide. In recent months, efforts have been directed towards detecting, tracking, and better understanding human humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. It has become critical to develop robust and reliable serological assays to characterize the abundance, neutralization efficiency, and duration of antibodies in virus-exposed individuals. Here we review the latest knowledge on humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection, along with the benefits and limitations of currently available commercial and laboratory-based serological assays. We also highlight important serological considerations, such as antibody expression levels, stability and neutralization dynamics, as well as cross-reactivity and possible immunological back-boosting by seasonal coronaviruses. The ability to accurately detect, measure and characterize the various antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 is necessary for vaccine development, manage risk and exposure for healthcare and at-risk workers, and for monitoring reinfections with genetic variants and new strains of the virus. Having a thorough understanding of the benefits and cautions of standardized serological testing at a community level remains critically important in the design and implementation of future vaccination campaigns, epidemiological models of immunity, and public health measures that rely heavily on up-to-date knowledge of transmission dynamics.

Comparative study of a new commercial recombinant line assay and two immunoassays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in PCR-confirmed outpatients

Objectives

Commercially available immunoassays have been developed for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. However, equivocal and discrepant results between different immunoassay can occur requiring further assessment by confirmatory tests.

Methods

We investigated the new commercial line assay recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Mikrogen, containing the antigens S1, receptor-binding domain of the spike protein, and nucleocapsid protein (NP) of SARS-CoV-2) within a collection of well characterized serum samples from COVID-19 outpatients (n=49) and SARS-CoV-2-PCR-positive asymptomatic contact persons (n=6) in comparison to two commercial immunoassays, the S1 antigen based Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA IgG by Euroimmun and the NP based Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 by Roche.

Results

The recomLine assay was positive in all samples which had an equivocal or positive result for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in at least one of the two immunoassays. It showed high agreement with the overall results of the immunoassays (94.5% [Cohen’s kappa = 0.85] and 92.7% [Cohen’s kappa 0.81] to the ELISA by Euroimmun and the assay by Roche, respectively). In addition, high agreement of the reactivity to the specific antigens S1 and NP in the recomLine assays compared to the results of the S1 based ELISA and NP based Elecsys® assay, was found (90.9% [Cohen’s kappa 0.78] and 96.4% [Cohen’s kappa 0.91] for S1 and NP, respectively).

Conclusions

The new recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay may be used as an additional tool for investigation of equivocal or discrepant results of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays and for antigen-specific detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.

Rapid and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by biolayer interferometry

Serological testing to evaluate antigen-specific antibodies in plasma is generally performed by rapid lateral flow test strips that lack quantitative results or by high complexity immunoassays that are time- and labor-intensive but provide semi-quantitative results. Here, we describe a novel application of biolayer interferometry for the rapid detection of antigen-specific antibody levels in plasma samples, and demonstrate its utility for quantification of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Our biolayer interferometry immunosorbent assay (BLI-ISA) utilizes single-use biosensors in an automated "dip-and-read" format, providing real-time optical measurements of antigen loading, plasma antibody binding, and antibody isotype detection. Complete semi-quantitative results are obtained in less than 20 min. BLI-ISA meets or exceeds the performance of high complexity methods such as Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and Chemiluminescent Immunoassay. Importantly, our method can be immediately implemented on existing BLI platforms for urgent COVID-19 studies, such as serosurveillance and the evaluation of vaccine candidates. In a broader sense, BLI-ISA can be developed as a novel diagnostic platform to evaluate antibodies and other biomolecules in clinical specimens.

SARS-CoV-2: a new threat

Background

The pandemic caused by the emergence of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus worldwide has had a major impact at all levels and has forced in-depth research into its behavior, pathogenicity and treatment.

Content

This review provides an overview of various aspects of the virus and the immune response it triggers, as well as a description of the different diagnostic and therapeutic approaches adopted.

Summary

SARS-COV-2 is a RNA virus with some peculiarities that make it different from its predecessors SARS-CoV and MERS. Given its structural characteristics and pathogenesis, it can cause different clinical manifestations as the disease progresses. The immune system has been proven to play a major role in the response to this virus and, therefore, the study of antibodies and lymphocyte populations during the different stages of the disease is crucial.

Outlook

The knowledge of the effect of the virus and the immune response is crucial for the development of good quality vaccines, therapies and diagnostic techniques, which are essential for the control and eradication of the disease.

Antibody response to multiple antigens of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes: an observational cohort study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the study was to characterise the humoral response against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients with diabetes. Demonstrating the ability to mount an appropriate antibody response in the presence of hyperglycaemia is relevant for the comprehension of mechanisms related to the observed worse clinical outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in patients with diabetes and for the development of any future vaccination campaign to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Using a highly specific and sensitive measurement of antibodies by fluid-phase luciferase immunoprecipitation assays, we characterised the IgG, IgM and IgA response against multiple antigens of SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of 509 patients with documented diagnosis of COVID-19, prospectively followed at our institution. We analysed clinical outcomes and antibody titres according to the presence of hyperglycaemia, i.e., either diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes, at the time of, or during, hospitalisation.

RESULTS

Among patients with confirmed COVID-19, 139 (27.3%) had diabetes: 90 (17.7%) had diabetes diagnosed prior to the hospital admission (comorbid diabetes) while 49 (9.6%) had diabetes diagnosed at the time of admission (newly diagnosed). Diabetes was associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leucocytosis and neutrophilia. Diabetes was independently associated with risk of death (HR 2.32 [95% CI 1.44, 3.75], p = 0.001), even after adjustment for age, sex and other relevant comorbidities. Moreover, a strong association between higher glucose levels and risk of death was documented irrespective of diabetes diagnosis (HR 1.14 × 1.1 mmol/l [95% CI 1.08, 1.21], p < 0.001). The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable, as for timing and antibody titres, to that of non-diabetic patients, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels. Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycaemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARs-COV-2 in people with diabetes. Graphical abstract.

SARS-CoV-2: una nueva amenaza

Objetivos

Aportar una breve revisión del conocimiento actual sobre el virus SARS-CoV-2, cuya irrupción ha causado un gran impacto en la sociedad a escala mundial.

Contenido

Esta revisión aporta una visión general de diversos aspectos del virus y de la respuesta inmunitaria que desencadena, así como aproximaciones diagnósticas y terapéuticas que se están llevando a cabo.

Resumen

SARS-CoV-2 es un virus RNA con características peculiares que lo diferencian de sus predecesores SARS-CoV y MERS. Dada sus características estructurales y su patogenia, es capaz de provocar diversas manifestaciones clínicas según avanza la enfermedad. Se ha demostrado que el sistema inmunitario juega un papel importante en la respuesta frente a este virus y, por ende, es crucial el estudio de los anticuerpos y las poblaciones linfocitarias durante los distintos estadios de la enfermedad.

Perspectiva

El conocimiento del efecto del virus y la respuesta inmunitaria es determinante para el desarrollo de vacunas, terapias y técnicas diagnósticas de calidad, esenciales para el control y la erradicación de la enfermedad.

Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of 10 serological assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Antibody detection is essential to establish exposure, infection, and immunity to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to perform epidemiological studies. The worldwide urge for new diagnostic tools to control the pandemic has led to a quick incorporation in clinical practice of the recently developed serological assays. However, as only few comparative studies have been published, there is a lack of data about the diagnostic accuracy of currently available assays. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy to detect Ig G, Ig M+A, and/or IgA anti SARS-CoV-2 of 10 different assays: lateral flow card immunoassays, 4 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and 3 chemiluminescent particle immunoassays (CMIA). Using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 as gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were determined. Each assay was tested in 2 groups, namely, positive control, formed by 50 sera from 50 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with positive RT-PCR; and negative control, formed by 50 sera from 50 patients with respiratory infection non-COVID-19. Sensitivity range of the 10 assays evaluated for patients with positive COVID-19 RT-PCR was 40-77% (65-81% considering IgG plus IgM). Specificity ranged 83-100%. VPP and VPN were respectively 81-100% and 61.6-81%. Among the lateral flow immunoassays, the highest sensitivity and specificity results were found in Wondfo® SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test. ELISA IgG and IgA from EUROIMMUN® were the most sensitive ELISA. However, poor results were obtained for isolated detection of IgG. We found similar sensitivity for IgG with SARS-CoV-2 for Architect by Abbott® and ELISA by Vircell®. Results obtained varied widely among the assays evaluated. Due to a better specificity, overall diagnostic accuracy of the assays evaluated was higher in case of positive result. On the other side, lack of antibody detection should be taken with care because of the low sensitivity described. Highest diagnostic accuracy was obtained with ELISA and CMIAs, but they last much longer.

A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in at-home collected finger-prick dried blood spots

Accurate surveillance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) incidence requires large-scale testing of the population. Current testing methods require in-person collection of biospecimens by a healthcare worker, limiting access of individuals who do not have access to testing facilities while placing both patients and healthcare workers at risk of exposure to infection. We report the development and validation of a at-home finger-prick dried blood spot collection kit and an analysis method. We demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity using at-home collected specimens across the US. Such methods may facilitate the conduct of unbiased serosurveys within hard to reach populations and help reduce the sample collection burden of serological testing on both health care systems and individuals alike.

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples

BACKGROUND

For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance of recently launched commercial immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

METHODS

51 serum samples from 26 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after end of quarantine and 25 control patients were analyzed using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope to assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 20 matching pairs of serum and plasma samples were included to analyze comparability between different specimens.

RESULTS

Overall, a diagnostic sensitivity of 92.3%, 96.2-100% and 100% with a respective diagnostic specificity of 100%, 100% and 84-86% for the immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope were determined. In total, 84-96% of samples were correctly classified as negative and 92.3-95.2% as positive. The level of concordance between plasma- and serum-based testing diverged between the assays (Epitope r2 = 0.97; Euroimmun r2 = 0.91; Roche r2 = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

The immunoassays from Euroimmun and Roche revealed a higher specificity than the Epitope assay without a substantial drop of diagnostic sensitivity. Significant differences between plasma- and serum-based testing highlights the need for determination of appropriate cut-offs per specimen type. Hence, there is an urgent need for test harmonization and establishment of quality standards for an appropriate use of COVID-19 serological tests.

Rapid Serological Assays and SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2: Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for the identification of viral nucleic acid is the current standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but technical issues limit its utilization for large-scale screening. Serological immunoglobulin M (IgM)/IgG testing has been proposed as a useful tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to compare the results of the rapid serological VivaDiag test for SARS-CoV-2-related IgM/IgG detection with those of the standard RT-PCR laboratory test for identifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid.

METHODS

We simultaneously performed both serological and molecular tests with a consecutive series of 191 symptomatic patients. The results provided by a new rapid serological colorimetric test for analyzing IgM/IgG expression were compared with those of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

RESULTS

Of the 191 subjects, 70 (36.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR results, while 34 (17.3%) tested positive based on serological IgM/IgG expression. Additionally, 13 (6.8%) subjects tested positive based on serological test results, but also tested negative based on RT-PCR results. The rapid serological test had a sensitivity of 30% and a specificity of 89% compared to the standard RT-PCR assay. Interestingly, the performance of both assays improved 8 days after symptom appearance. After 10 days had passed since symptom appearance, the predictive value of the rapid serological test was higher than that of the standard molecular assay (proportion of positive results: 40% vs 20%). Multivariate analysis showed that age >58 years (P<.01) and period of >15 days after symptom onset (P<.02) were significant and independent factors associated with serological test positivity.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid serological test analyzed in this study seems limited in terms of usefulness when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it may be useful for providing relevant information on people's immunoreaction to COVID-19 exposure.

A Sensitive, Rapid, and Portable CasRx-based Diagnostic Assay for SARS-CoV-2

Since its first emergence from China in late 2019, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has spread globally despite unprecedented containment efforts, resulting in a catastrophic worldwide pandemic. Successful identification and isolation of infected individuals can drastically curtail virus spread and limit outbreaks. However, during the early stages of global transmission, point-of-care diagnostics were largely unavailable and continue to remain difficult to procure, greatly inhibiting public health efforts to mitigate spread. Furthermore, the most prevalent testing kits rely on reagent- and time-intensive protocols to detect viral RNA, preventing rapid and cost-effective diagnosis. Therefore the development of an extensive toolkit for point-of-care diagnostics that is expeditiously adaptable to new emerging pathogens is of critical public health importance. Recently, a number of novel CRISPR-based diagnostics have been developed to detect COVID-19. Herein, we outline the development of a CRISPR-based nucleic acid molecular diagnostic utilizing a Cas13d ribonuclease derived from Ruminococcus flavefaciens (CasRx) to detect SARS-CoV-2, an approach we term SENSR (Sensitive Enzymatic Nucleic-acid Sequence Reporter). We demonstrate SENSR robustly detects SARS-CoV-2 sequences in both synthetic and patient-derived samples by lateral flow and fluorescence, thus expanding the available point-of-care diagnostics to combat current and future pandemics.