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

The Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in an Exposed Human Population Is Biased by the Immunoassay Used: Implications in Serosurveillance

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was examined over 7 months in a population of essential service workers exposed during the first epidemic wave in Madrid (Spain). Results obtained with different serological assays were compared. Firstly, serum samples obtained in April 2020 were analyzed using eleven SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection methods, including seven ELISAs, two CLIAs and two LFAs. While all of the ELISA tests and the Roche eCLIA method showed good performance, it was poorer for the Abbott CLIA and LFA tests. Sera from 115 workers with serologically positive results in April were collected 2 and 7 months after the first sampling and were analyzed using five of the tests previously assessed. The results showed that while some ELISA tests consistently detected the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies even 7 months after first detection, other methods, such as the Abbott CLIA test, showed an important reduction in sensitivity for these mature antibodies. The sensitivity increased after establishing new cut-off values, calculated taking into account both recent and old infections, suggesting that an adjustment of assay parameters may improve the detection of individuals exposed to the infection.

Economical and Easily Obtainable Tools to Manually Develop Lateral Flow Immunoassay Strips

The development of inexpensive and highly functional lateral flow devices, which utilize simple and affordable tools, can make them accessible to many populations with insufficient resources. Therefore, this study aims to provide a method to overcome the cost challenges associated with using expensive manufacturing technologies and machinery, particularly during pandemics and upon urgent need. Here, in-house lateral flow strips to detect serum antibodies were developed using low-priced and easily available tools such as adhesive tape and CytoSep layers. The developed lateral flow immunoassay strips presented here produced signals with 93.3 and 96.6% sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein-specific IgM and IgG antibodies, respectively. The specificity obtained from the developed strips was 96.6% for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein-specific IgM and 100% for the IgG antibodies by applying only 5 μL from the serum samples. The proposed design was entirely made manually to ensure a method that would make lateral flow devices available to many populations in need around the globe.

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among blood donors from December 2020 to June 2021 in Koutiala district, Mali

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). At the time of the study, little data on the level of exposure of the population in Koutiala district in Mali to SARS-CoV-2 was available. Although blood donors are not representative of the general population, a COVID-19 seroprevalence estimate in this population was intended to assess the extent of community transmission, serve as a health alert system, and help guide the public health response. We measured seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using NG-Biotech SARS-Cov-2 RDT and ECLIA test between January and June 2020. This is a cross-sectional study of volunteer blood donors aged 18 to 60 years, independent of any previous COVID-19 disease. A stratified analysis of seroprevalence by month of sample collection and a comparison of the results of the NG-Biotech SARS-Cov-2 RDT with those of the ECLIA test was performed. The overall prevalence of antibodies to SARS-Cov-2 virus assessed by the NG-Biotech SARS-Cov-2 RDT was 24.6% (95% CI 21.8-27.4) and by the ECLIA test was 70.2 (95% CI 64.9-75.5). Both estimates remained relatively stable over the study period. We observed SARS-CoV-2 exposure much higher than indicated by case-based surveillance. The national surveillance system, as it was, was not able to detect variations in incidence, and as such, we do not recommend it as an alert system. However, the discrepancy between the results of the rapid test and the ECLIA test shows that further research is required to assess the validity of these test before a more solid conclusion can be drawn it their use in surveillance.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Evaluation of qualitative and semi-quantitative cut offs for rapid diagnostic lateral flow test in relation to serology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: findings of a prospective study

Background:

There is limited information to compare the qualitative and semi-quantitative performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and serology for the assessment of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Therefore, the objective of the study was (a) to compare the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection between RDT and laboratory serology, trying to identify appropriate semi-quantitative cut-offs for RDT in relation with quantitative serology values and to (b) evaluate diagnostic accuracy of RDT compared to the NAAT gold standard in an unselected adult population.

Methods:

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were simultaneously measured with lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFA), the Cellex qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (by capillary blood), the iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) (by venous blood) and the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) in samples from in- and out-patients with confirmed, suspected and negative diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) attending Udine Hospital (Italy) (March-May 2020). Interpretation of RDT was qualitative (positive/negative) and semi-quantitative based on a chromatographic intensity scale (negative, weak positive, positive).

Results:

Overall, 720 paired antibody measures were performed on 858 patients. The qualitative and semiquantitative agreement analysis performed in the whole sample between LFA and CLIA provided a Kendall’s tau of 0.578 (p < 0.001) and of 0.623 (p < 0.001), respectively, for IgM and IgG. In patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19, accordance between LFA and CLIA was maintained as a function of time from the onset of COVID-19 disease and the severity of disease both for qualitative and semi-quantitative assessments. RDT compared to the NAAT gold standard in 858 patients showed 78.5% sensitivity (95% CI 75.1%-81.7%) and 94.1% specificity (95% CI 90.4%-96.8%), with variable accordance depending on the timing from symptom onset.

Conclusion:

The RDT used in our study can be a non-invasive and reliable alternative to serological tests and facilitate both qualitative and a semi-quantitative antibody detection in COVID-19.

Association of Results of Four Lateral Flow Antibody Tests with Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine coverage remains incomplete, being only 15% in low-income countries. Rapid point-of-care tests predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in the unvaccinated may assist in risk management and vaccine prioritization. We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK, during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Plasma taken at recruitment in June 2020 was tested using four lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices and two laboratory immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (UK Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19 rapid test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM rapid test cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 rapid test cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test; Roche N and Euroimmun S laboratory assays). We monitored participants for microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for 200 days. We estimated associations between test results at baseline and subsequent infection, using Poisson regression models adjusted for baseline demographic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Positive IgG results on each of the four LFIAs were associated with lower rates of subsequent infection with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00 to 0.01), 0.03 (0.02 to 0.05), 0.07 (0.05 to 0.10), and 0.09 (0.07 to 0.12), respectively. The protective association was strongest for AbC-19 and SureScreen. The aIRR for the laboratory Roche N antibody assay at the manufacturer-recommended threshold was similar to those of the two best performing LFIAs at 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10). Lateral flow devices measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG predicted disease risk in unvaccinated individuals over a 200-day follow-up. The association of some LFIAs with subsequent infection was similar to laboratory immunoassays. IMPORTANCE Previous research has demonstrated an association between the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and protection from subsequent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are a cheap, readily deployed technology that has been used on a large scale in population screening programs, yet no studies have investigated whether LFIA results are associated with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study of 2,826 United Kingdom key workers, we found positivity in lateral flow test results had a strong negative association with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection within 200 days in an unvaccinated population. Positivity on more-specific but less-sensitive tests was associated with a markedly decreased rate of disease; protection associated with testing positive using more sensitive devices detecting lower levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was more modest. Lateral flow tests with high specificity may have a role in estimation of SARS-CoV-2 disease risk in unvaccinated populations.

SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: From detection to evaluation

SARS-CoV-2 presence in wastewater has been reported in several studies and has received widespread attention among the Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) community. Such studies can potentially be used as a proxy for early warning of potential COVID-19 outbreak, or as a mitigation measure for potential virus transmission via contaminated water. In this review, we summarized the latest understanding on the detection, concentration, and evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater. Importantly, we discuss factors affecting the quality of wastewater surveillance ranging from temperature, pH, starting concentration, as well as the presence of chemical pollutants. These factors greatly affect the reliability and comparability of studies reported by various communities across the world. Overall, this review provides a broadly encompassing guidance for epidemiological study using wastewater surveillance.

Performance evaluation of novel fluorescent-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) for rapid detection and quantification of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD binding antibodies in infected individuals

Background

A vast majority of the commercially available lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies qualitatively. Recently, a novel fluorescence-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test was developed for quantitative measurement of the total binding antibody units (BAUs) (BAU/mL) against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (S-RBD).

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the fluorescence LFIA Finecare^TM 2019-nCoV S-RBD test along with its reader (Model No.: FS-113).

Methods

Plasma from 150 reverse trancriptase–PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed positive individuals and 100 prepandemic samples were tested by Fincare^TM to access sensitivity and specificity. For qualitative and quantitative validation of the FinCare^TM measurements, BAU/mL results of FinCare^TM were compared with results of 2 reference assays: the surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT, GenScript Biotech, USA) and the VIDAS®3 automated assay (BioMérieux, France).

Results

Finecare^TM showed 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared with PCR. Cohen's Kappa statistic denoted moderate and excellent agreement with sVNT and VIDAS®3, with values being 0.557 (95% CI: 0.32–0.78) and 0.731 (95% CI: 0.51–0.95), respectively. A strong correlation was observed between Finecare^TM/sVNT (r = 0.7, p < 0.0001) and Finecare^TM/VIDAS®3 (r = 0.8, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Finecare^TM is a reliable assay and can be used as a surrogate to assess binding and neutralizing antibody response after infection or vaccination, particularly in none or small laboratory settings.

A practical approach to SARS-CoV-2 testing in a pre and post-vaccination era

As countries globally are in the process of planning, introducing or implementing mass vaccination strategies while continuing to deal with the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, an evolution in testing strategies may be required to minimize spread in mixed vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. This mini-review explores the key public health questions associated with the widely varying efficacy of commercially available vaccines and their persistence of protection in the context of a growing number of variant virus strains. A new strategy for SARS-CoV-2 testing that accommodates the current and evolving pandemic paradigm is proposed.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first week of symptom onset in patients confirmed with the real-time RT-PCR. Materials & methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 publications were performed using data obtained from Academic Search Ultimate, Africa-wide, Scopus, Web of Science and MEDLINE. Results: We found that the highest pooled sensitivities were obtained with ELISA IgM-IgG and chemiluminescence immunoassay IgM tests. Conclusion: Serological tests have low sensitivity within the first week of symptom onset and cannot replace nucleic acid amplification tests. However, serological assays can be used to support nucleic acid amplification tests.

Phacoemulsification and nucleic acid-enriched aerosol: considerations from an eye model of cataract simulation

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether phacoemulsification can generate aerosolized single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) and retain sequence integrity using an artificial eye model for experimental cataract surgery.

Methods

A simulation of cataract surgery was performed using an anterior chamber eye model filled with an ssRNA probe at different scalar dilutions (kanamycin positive control ssRNA). A plastic conical cage was built over the artificial eye surface of the mock-up. A total of 24 tests (twice reproduced) were performed, and five nitrocellulose strips were placed 15 cm from the artificial surface of the mock-up and used to collect aerosol particles, from each experiment. Phaco-activity was mimicked using a phacoemulsification equipped with a 2.75-mm tip, and strips were removed at the end of the procedure. RNA extraction, reverse transcription, and agarose gel electrophoresis were performed and compared.

Results

Strips collected aerosol droplets enriched with ssRNA, mainly at the higher concentrations tested, compared to related untouched standard solutions. Complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesis confirmed the presence of intact ssRNA fragments. As observed from densitometric analysis of resolved RNA in extracted samples and cDNA bands after retro-transcription, lower concentrations of ssRNA were also detected.

Conclusions

As the main output of the study, the phaco-generated aerosol can deliver an intact ssRNA sequence. Since the aerosol can potentially reach the operator’s face, any biological agent (virus/bacteria) potentially inside the anterior chamber of a patient undergoing cataract surgery, eventually escaping from biomolecular checks, can be potentially infective for operators. The data reported herein suggest that collective versus individual protective countermeasures should always be encouraged in ocular surgery and should not be restricted to coronavirus disease emergencies.

SARS-CoV-2 Tests: Bridging the Gap between Laboratory Sensors and Clinical Applications

This review covers emerging biosensors for SARS-CoV-2 detection together with a review of the biochemical and clinical assays that are in use in hospitals and clinical laboratories. We discuss the gap in bridging the current practice of testing laboratories with nucleic acid amplification methods, and the robustness of assays the laboratories seek, and what emerging SARS-CoV-2 sensors have currently addressed in the literature. Together with the established nucleic acid and biochemical tests, we review emerging technology and antibody tests to determine the effectiveness of vaccines on individuals.

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

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

Diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests in detecting coronavirus disease 2019: systematic review

Introduction

The rapid transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires a fast, accurate, and affordable detection method. Despite doubts of their diagnostic accuracy, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are used worldwide due to their practicality. This systematic review aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody-based RDTs in detecting COVID-19.

Material and methods

A literature search was carried out on five journal databases using the PRISMA-P 2015 method. We included all studies published up to February 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies. Data regarding peer-review status, study design, test kit information, immunoglobulin class, target antigen, and the number of samples were extracted and tabulated. We estimated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with a 95% confidence interval.

Results

Thirty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled data results showed that the combined detection method of IgM or IgG had the highest sensitivity and NPV, which were 73.41% (95% CI: 72.22-74.57) and 75.34% (95% CI: 74.51-76.16), respectively. The single IgG detection method had the highest specificity and PPV of 96.68% (95% CI: 96.25-97.07) and 95.97% (95% CI: 95.47-96.42%), respectively.

Conclusions

Antibody-based RDTs are not satisfactory as primary diagnostic tests but have utility as a screening tool.

Essential properties and pitfalls of colorimetric Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) colorimetric detection is a sensitive and specific point-of-care molecular biology technique used to detect the virus in only 30 min. In this manuscript we have described a few nuances of the technique still not properly described in the literature: the presence of three colors clusters; the correlation of the viral load with the color change; and the importance of using an internal control to avoid false-negative results.

METHODS

To achieve these findings, we performed colorimetric RT-LAMP assays of 466 SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR validated clinical samples, with color quantification measured at 434 nm and 560 nm.

RESULTS

First we determinate a sensitivity of 93.8% and specificity of 90.4%. In addition to the pink (negative) and yellow (positive) produced colors, we report for the first time the presence of an orange color cluster that may lead to wrong diagnosis. We also demonstrated using RT-qPCR and RT-LAMP that low viral loads are related to Ct values > 30, resulting in orange colors. We also demonstrated that the diagnosis of COVID-19 by colorimetric RT-LAMP is efficient until the fifth symptoms day when the viral load is still relatively high.

CONCLUSION

This study reports properties and indications for colorimetric RT-LAMP as point-of-care for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic, reducing false results, interpretations and optimizing molecular diagnostics tests application.

Using artificial intelligence to improve COVID-19 rapid diagnostic test result interpretation

Serological rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used across pathologies, often providing users a simple, binary result (positive or negative) in as little as 5 to 20 min. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, new RDTs for identifying SARS-CoV-2 have rapidly proliferated. However, these seemingly easy-to-read tests can be highly subjective, and interpretations of the visible “bands” of color that appear (or not) in a test window may vary between users, test models, and brands. We developed and evaluated the accuracy/performance of a smartphone application (xRCovid) that uses machine learning to classify SARS-CoV-2 serological RDT results and reduce reading ambiguities. Across 11 COVID-19 RDT models, the app yielded 99.3% precision compared to reading by eye. Using the app replaces the uncertainty from visual RDT interpretation with a smaller uncertainty of the image classifier, thereby increasing confidence of clinicians and laboratory staff when using RDTs, and creating opportunities for patient self-testing.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Clinical Performance and the Neutralizing Antibody Activity Prediction Properties of 10 High-Throughput Serological Assays Used in Clinical Laboratories

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic second wave is emerging, it is of the upmost importance to screen the population immunity in order to keep track of infected individuals. Consequently, immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with high specificity and positive predictive values are needed to obtain an accurate epidemiological picture. As more data accumulate about the immune responses and the kinetics of neutralizing-antibody (nAb) production in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, new applications are forecast for serological assays such as nAb activity prediction in convalescent-phase plasma from recovered patients. This multicenter study, involving six hospital centers, determined the baseline clinical performances, reproducibility, and nAb level correlations of 10 commercially available immunoassays. In addition, three lateral-flow chromatography assays were evaluated, as these devices can be used in logistically challenged areas. All assays were evaluated using the same patient panels in duplicate, thus enabling accurate comparison of the tests. Seven immunoassays examined in this study were shown to have excellent specificity (98 to 100%) and good to excellent positive predictive values (82 to 100%) when used in a low (5%)-seroprevalence setting. We observed sensitivities as low as 74% and as high as 95% at ≥15 days after symptom onset. The determination of optimized cutoff values through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses had a significant impact on the diagnostic resolution of several enzyme immunoassays by increasing the sensitivity significantly without a large trade-off in specificity. We found that spike-based immunoassays seem to be better correlates of nAb activity. Finally, the results reported here will add to the general knowledge of the interlaboratory reproducibility of clinical performance parameters of immunoassays and provide new evidence about nAb activity prediction.