Analytical Sensitivity of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card

Biolayer-Interferometry-Guided Functionalization of Screen-Printed Graphene for Label-Free Electrochemical Virus Detection

Additive manufacturing holds promise for rapid prototyping and low-cost production of biosensors for diverse pathogens. Among additive manufacturing methods, screen printing is particularly desirable for high-throughput production of sensing platforms. However, this technique needs to be combined with carefully formulated inks, rapid postprocessing, and selective functionalization to meet all requirements for high-performance biosensing applications. Here, we present screen-printed graphene electrodes that are processed with thermal annealing to achieve high surface area and electrical conductivity for sensitive biodetection via electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. As a proof-of-concept, this biosensing platform is utilized for electrochemical detection of SARS-CoV-2. To ensure reliable specificity in the presence of multiple variants, biolayer interferometry (BLI) is used as a label-free and dynamic screening method to identify optimal antibodies for concurrent affinity to the Spike S1 proteins of Delta, Omicron, and Wild Type SARS-CoV-2 variants while maintaining low affinity to competing pathogens such as Influenza H1N1. The BLI-identified antibodies are robustly bound to the graphene electrode surface via oxygen moieties that are introduced during the thermal annealing process. The resulting electrochemical immunosensors achieve superior metrics including rapid detection (55 s readout following 15 min of incubation), low limits of detection (approaching 500 ag/mL for the Omicron variant), and high selectivity toward multiple variants. Importantly, the sensors perform well on clinical saliva samples detecting as few as 103 copies/mL of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron, following CDC protocols. The combination of the screen-printed graphene sensing platform and effective antibody selection using BLI can be generalized to a wide range of point-of-care immunosensors.

SARS-CoV-2 recombinase polymerase amplification assay with lateral flow readout and duplexed full process internal control

Nucleic acid amplification tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 have been an important testing mechanism for the COVID-19 pandemic. While these traditional nucleic acid diagnostic methods are highly sensitive and selective, they are not suited to home or clinic-based uses. Comparatively, rapid antigen tests are cost-effective and user friendly but lack in sensitivity and specificity. Here we report on the development of a one-pot, duplexed reverse transcriptase recombinase polymerase amplification SARS-CoV-2 assay with MS2 bacteriophage as a full process control. Detection is carried out with either real-time fluorescence or lateral flow readout with an analytical sensitivity of 50 copies per reaction. Unlike previously published assays, the RNA-based MS2 bacteriophage control reports on successful operation of lysis, reverse transcription, and amplification. This SARS-CoV-2 assay features highly sensitive detection, visual readout through an LFA strip, results in less than 25 minutes, minimal instrumentation, and a useful process internal control to rule out false negative test results.

UbiNAAT: a multiplexed point-of-care nucleic acid diagnostic platform for rapid at-home pathogen detection

The COVID-19 pandemic increased demands for respiratory disease testing to facilitate treatment and limit transmission, demonstrating in the process that most existing test options were too complex and expensive to perform in point-of-care or home scenarios. Lab-based molecular techniques can detect viral RNA in respiratory illnesses but are expensive and require trained personnel, while affordable antigen-based home tests lack sensitivity for early detection in newly infected or asymptomatic individuals. The few home RNA detection tests deployed were prohibitively expensive. Here, we demonstrate a point-of-care, paper-based rapid analysis device that simultaneously detects multiple viral RNAs; it is demonstrated on two common respiratory viruses (COVID-19 and influenza A) spiked onto a commercial nasal swab. The automated device requires no sample preparation by the user after insertion of the swab, minimizing user operation steps. We incorporated lyophilized amplification reagents immobilized in a porous matrix, a novel thermally actuated valve for multiplexed fluidic control, a printed circuit board that performs on-device lysis and amplification within a cell-phone-sized disposable device. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) products are visualized via fluorescent dyes using a modified cell phone, resulting in detection of as few as 104 viral copies per swab across both pathogens within 30 minutes. This integrated platform could be commercialized in a form that would be inexpensive, portable, and sensitive; it can readily be multiplexed to detect as many as 8 different RNA or DNA sequences, and adapted to any desired RNA or DNA detection assays.

A single-molecule RNA electrical biosensor for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic shows a critical need for rapid, inexpensive, and ultrasensitive early detection methods based on biomarker analysis to reduce mortality rates by containing the spread of epidemics. This can be achieved through the electrical detection of nucleic acids at the single-molecule level. In particular, the scanning tunneling microscopic-assisted break junction (STM-BJ) method can be utilized to detect individual nucleic acid molecules with high specificity and sensitivity in liquid samples. Here, we demonstrate single-molecule electrical detection of RNA coronavirus biomarkers, including those of SARS-CoV-2 as well as those of different variants and subvariants. Our target sequences include a conserved sequence in the human coronavirus family, a conserved target specific for the SARS-CoV-2 family, and specific targets at the variant and subvariant levels. Our results demonstrate that it is possible to distinguish between different variants of the COVID-19 virus using electrical conductance signals, as recently suggested by theoretical approaches. Our results pave the way for future miniaturized single-molecule electrical biosensors that could be game changers for infectious diseases and other public health applications.

The diversification of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants and evaluation of their detection with molecular and rapid antigen assays

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic saw the rapid rise, global spread, and diversification of the omicron variant in 2022. Given the overwhelming dominance of this variant globally and its diverse lineages, there is an urgent need to ensure that diagnostic assays are capable of detecting widely circulating omicron sub-lineages.

STUDY DESIGN

Remnant clinical VTM samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR confirmed infections (n = 733) collected in Wisconsin (n = 94), New York (n = 267), and South Carolina (n = 372) throughout 2022 were sequenced, classified, and tested with m2000 RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, ID NOW COVID-19 v2.0, BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card, and Panbio COVID-19 Rapid Test Device assays.

RESULTS

Sequences and lineage classifications were obtained for n = 641/733 (87.4%) samples and included delta (n = 6) and representatives from all major SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants circulating in 2022 (BA.1, BA.2, BA.3, BA.4, BA.5, BE, BF, BQ.1, and XBB). Panels of diverse omicron lineages were tested by molecular assays RealTime (n = 624), Alinity m (n = 80), and ID NOW v2.0 (n = 88) with results showing 100% detection for all samples. BinaxNOW and Panbio had sensitivities of 494/533 (92.7%) and 416/469 (88.7%), respectively for specimens with >4 log10 copies/test, consistent with expected performance for frozen specimens. Furthermore, BinaxNOW demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 detection in clinical samples 1-4 days, and up to 18 days post-symptom onset in BA.1 infected patients with >4 log10 copies/test.

CONCLUSIONS

This data highlights the rise and diversification of SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants over the course of 2022 and demonstrate that each of the 5 tested assays can detect the breadth of omicron variants circulating globally.

Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study

BACKGROUND

A highly accurate, rapid, and low-cost COVID-19 test is essential for guiding isolation measures. To date, the most widely used tests are either nucleic acid amplification tests or antigen tests. The objective of this study is to further assess the diagnostic performance of the Binax-CoV2 rapid antigen test in comparison to the current gold standard reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), with additional analysis of symptomatology and cycle threshold utility.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study performed between November and December 2020. Individuals who presented to COVID-19 testing events and received both RT-qPCR and a rapid antigent test were included. Testing occurred at the emergency department of an urban hospital and at a community mobile unit. No fees or appointments were required. Individuals self-reported the presence or absence of symptoms and history of positive COVID-19 test within the previous two weeks. Trained staff collected two subsequent nasopharyngeal swabs of both nares. One set of swabs underwent RT-qPCR and the other underwent Binax-CoV2 assay per manufacturer guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 390 patients were included, of which 302 were from the community site. Of these 302, 42 (14%) were RT-qPCR positive. Of the 42 RT-qPCR positive, 30 (71.4%) were also positive by Binax-CoV2. The Binax-CoV2 test had a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 55%-84%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98%-100%) in this population. Performance of the Binax-CoV2 test performed better in individuals with higher viral load. For symptomatic patients with cycle threshold < 20, sensitivity reached 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Binax-CoV2 assay's specificity and sensitivity in individuals with high viral load makes it a suitable first-line test for detecting COVID-19. However, given the assay's measured sensitivity, a negative result on the Binax-CoV2 assay may warrant additional testing with more sensitive tests, such as the RT-qPCR. This is particularly the case with high clinical suspicion for an active SARS-CoV-2 infection even after a negative Binax-CoV2 result.

Successful Treatment of Prolonged, Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Lower Respiratory Tract Disease in a B cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Patient With an Extended Course of Remdesivir and Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir

A patient with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had persistent, progressive pneumonia with viremia after 5 months of infection despite monoclonal antibodies, intravenous (IV) remdesivir and prolonged oral steroids. Twenty days of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 10 days of IV remdesivir led to full recovery.

Laboratory-Based SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain Serologic Assays Perform with Equivalent Sensitivity and Specificity to Commercial FDA-EUA Approved Tests

During early phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, many research laboratories repurposed their efforts towards developing diagnostic testing that could aid public health surveillance while commercial and public diagnostic laboratories developed capacity and validated large scale testing methods. Simultaneously, the rush to produce point-of-care and diagnostic facility testing resulted in FDA Emergency Use Authorization with scarce and poorly validated clinical samples. Here, we review serologic test results from 186 serum samples collected in early phases of the pandemic (May 2020) from skilled nursing facilities tested with six laboratory-based and two commercially available assays. Serum neutralization titers were used to set cut-off values using positive to negative ratio (P/N) analysis to account for batch effects. We found that laboratory-based receptor binding domain (RBD) binding assays had equivalent or superior sensitivity and specificity compared to commercially available tests. We also determined seroconversion rate and compared with qPCR outcomes. Our work suggests that research laboratory assays can contribute reliable surveillance information and should be considered important adjuncts to commercial laboratory testing facilities during early phases of disease outbreaks.

Comparison of BinaxNOW and SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR Detection of the Omicron Variant from Matched Anterior Nares Swabs

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). In winter 2021 to 2022, the Omicron variant surge made it apparent that although RDTs are less sensitive than quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR), the accessibility, ease of use, and rapid readouts made them a sought after and often sold-out item at local suppliers. Here, we sought to qualify the Abbott BinaxNOW RDT for use in our university testing program as a method to rule in positive or rule out negative individuals quickly at our priority qRT-PCR testing site. To perform this qualification study, we collected additional swabs from individuals attending this site. All swabs were tested using BinaxNOW. Initially as part of a feasibility study, test period 1 (n = 110) samples were stored cold before testing. In test period 2 (n = 209), samples were tested immediately. Combined, 102/319 samples tested severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive via qRT-PCR. All sequenced samples were Omicron (n = 92). We calculated 53.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a 100% positive predictive value, and an 82.2% negative predictive value for BinaxNOW (n = 319). Sensitivity would be improved (75.3%) by changing the qRT-PCR positivity threshold from a threshold cycle (CT) value of 40 to a CT value of 30. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve shows that for qRT-PCR-positive CT values of between 24 and 40, the BinaxNOW test is of limited value diagnostically. Results suggest BinaxNOW could be used in our setting to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with substantial viral load, but a significant fraction of infected individuals would be missed if we used RDTs exclusively to rule out infection. IMPORTANCE Our results suggest BinaxNOW can rule in SARS-CoV-2 infection but would miss infections if RDTs were exclusively used.

Lateral Flow Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2

The continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2 virus in different parts of the world opens up the possibility for more virulent variants to evolve even as the coronavirus disease 2019 transitions from pandemic to endemic. Highly transmissible and virulent variants may seed new disruptive epidemic waves that can easily put the healthcare system under tremendous pressure. Despite various nucleic acid-based diagnostic tests that are now commercially available, the wide applications of these tests are largely hampered by specialized equipment requirements that may not be readily available, accessible and affordable in less developed countries or in low resource settings. Hence, the availability of lateral flow immunoassays (LFIs), which can serve as a diagnostic tool by detecting SARS-CoV-2 antigen or as a serological tool by measuring host immune response, is highly appealing. LFI is rapid, low cost, equipment-free, scalable for mass production and ideal for point-of-care settings. In this review, we first summarize the principle and assay format of these LFIs with emphasis on those that were granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration followed by discussion on the specimen type, marker selection and assay performance. We conclude with an overview of challenges and future perspective of LFI applications.

Rapid and accurate identification of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants using droplet digital PCR (RT-ddPCR)

BACKGROUND

Some mutations in the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein are associated with increased transmission or substantial reductions in vaccine efficacy, including in recently described Omicron subvariants. The changing frequencies of these mutations combined with their differing susceptibility to available therapies have posed significant problems for clinicians and public health professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an assay capable of rapidly and accurately identifying variants including Omicron in clinical specimens to enable case tracking and/or selection of appropriate clinical treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Using three duplex RT-ddPCR reactions targeting four amino acids, we tested 419 positive clinical specimens from February to December 2021 during a period of rapidly shifting variant prevalences and compared genotyping results to genome sequences for each sample, determining the sensitivity and specificity of the assay for each variant.

RESULTS

Mutation determinations for 99.7% of detected samples agree with NGS data for those samples, and are accurate despite wide variation in RNA concentration and potential confounding factors like transport medium, presence of additional respiratory viruses, and additional mutations in primer and probe sequences. The assay accurately identified the first 15 Omicron variants in our laboratory including the first Omicron in Washington State and discriminated against S-gene dropout Delta specimen.

CONCLUSION

We describe an accurate, precise, and specific RT-ddPCR assay for variant detection that remains robust despite being designed prior the emergence of Delta and Omicron variants. The assay can quickly identify mutations in current and past SARS-CoV-2 variants, and can be adapted to future mutations.

Simplified Cas13-based assays for the fast identification of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants

The widespread transmission and evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) call for rapid nucleic acid diagnostics that are easy to use outside of centralized clinical laboratories. Here we report the development and performance benchmarking of Cas13-based nucleic acid assays leveraging lyophilised reagents and fast sample inactivation at ambient temperature. The assays, which we named SHINEv.2 (for 'streamlined highlighting of infections to navigate epidemics, version 2'), simplify the previously reported RNA-extraction-free SHINEv.1 technology by eliminating heating steps and the need for cold storage of the reagents. SHINEv.2 detected SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal samples with 90.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity (benchmarked against the reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction) in less than 90 min, using lateral-flow technology and incubation in a heat block at 37 °C. SHINEv.2 also allows for the visual discrimination of the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants, and can be run without performance losses by using body heat. Accurate, easy-to-use and equipment-free nucleic acid assays could facilitate wider testing for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in point-of-care and at-home settings.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUND

Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 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) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Review of COVID-19 testing and diagnostic methods

More than six billion tests for COVID-19 has been already performed in the world. The testing for SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2) virus and corresponding human antibodies is essential not only for diagnostics and treatment of the infection by medical institutions, but also as a pre-requisite for major semi-normal economic and social activities such as international flights, off line work and study in offices, access to malls, sport and social events. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, time to results and cost per test are essential parameters of those tests and even minimal improvement in any of them may have noticeable impact on life in the many countries of the world. We described, analyzed and compared methods of COVID-19 detection, while representing their parameters in 22 tables. Also, we compared test performance of some FDA approved test kits with clinical performance of some non-FDA approved methods just described in scientific literature. RT-PCR still remains a golden standard in detection of the virus, but a pressing need for alternative less expensive, more rapid, point of care methods is evident. Those methods that may eventually get developed to satisfy this need are explained, discussed, quantitatively compared. The review has a bioanalytical chemistry prospective, but it may be interesting for a broader circle of readers who are interested in understanding and improvement of COVID-19 testing, helping eventually to leave COVID-19 pandemic in the past.

Rapid and Sensitive Detection of Antigen from SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern by a Multivalent Minibinder-Functionalized Nanomechanical Sensor

New platforms for the rapid and sensitive detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern are urgently needed. Here we report the development of a nanomechanical sensor based on the deflection of a microcantilever capable of detecting the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) glycoprotein antigen using computationally designed multivalent minibinders immobilized on a microcantilever surface. The sensor exhibits rapid (<5 min) detection of the target antigens down to concentrations of 0.05 ng/mL (362 fM) and is more than an order of magnitude more sensitive than an antibody-based cantilever sensor. Validation of the sensor with clinical samples from 33 patients, including 9 patients infected with the Omicron (BA.1) variant observed detection of antigen from nasopharyngeal swabs with cycle threshold (Ct) values as high as 39, suggesting a limit of detection similar to that of the quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Our findings demonstrate the use of minibinders and nanomechanical sensors for the rapid and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 and potentially other disease markers.

Advanced Molecular and Immunological Diagnostic Methods to Detect SARS-CoV-2 Infection

COVID-19 emerged in late 2019 in China and quickly spread across the globe, causing over 521 million cases of infection and 6.26 million deaths to date. After 2 years, numerous advances have been made. First of all, the preventive vaccine, which has been implemented in record time, is effective in more than 95% of cases. Additionally, in the diagnostic field, there are numerous molecular and antigenic diagnostic kits that are equipped with high sensitivity and specificity. Real Time-PCR-based assays for the detection of viral RNA are currently considered the gold-standard method for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and can be used efficiently on pooled nasopharyngeal, or oropharyngeal samples for widespread screening. Moreover, additional, and more advanced molecular methods such as droplet-digital PCR (ddPCR), clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS), are currently under development to detect the SARS-CoV-2 RNA. However, as the number of subjects infected with SARS-CoV-2 continuously increases globally, health care systems are being placed under increased stress. Thus, the clinical laboratory plays an important role, helping to select especially asymptomatic individuals who are actively carrying the live replicating virus, with fast and non-invasive molecular technologies. Recent diagnostic strategies, other than molecular methods, have been adopted to either detect viral antigens, i.e., antigen-based immunoassays, or human anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, i.e., antibody-based immunoassays, in nasal or oropharyngeal swabs, as well as in blood or saliva samples. However, the role of mucosal sIgAs, which are essential in the control of viruses entering the body through mucosal surfaces, remains to be elucidated, and in particular the role of the immune response in counteracting SARS-CoV-2 infection, primarily at the site(s) of virus entry that appears to be promising.

Rapid Antigen Assays for SARS-CoV-2: Promise and Peril

Though rapid antigen tests have historically problematic performance characteristics for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections such as influenza, they have attained an unprecedented level of use in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ease of use and scalability of rapid antigen tests has facilitated a democratization and scale of testing beyond anything reasonably achievable by traditional laboratory-based testing. In this chapter, we discuss the performance characteristics of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection and their application to non-traditional uses beyond clinical diagnostic testing.

Remote Floating-Gate Field-Effect Transistor with 2-Dimensional Reduced Graphene Oxide Sensing Layer for Reliable Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Proteins

Despite intensive research of nanomaterials-based field-effect transistors (FETs) as a rapid diagnostic tool, it remains to be seen for FET sensors to be used for clinical applications due to a lack of stability, reliability, reproducibility, and scalability for mass production. Herein, we propose a remote floating-gate (RFG) FET configuration to eliminate device-to-device variations of two-dimensional reduced graphene oxide (rGO) sensing surfaces and most of the instability at the solution interface. Also, critical mechanistic factors behind the electrochemical instability of rGO such as severe drift and hysteresis were identified through extensive studies on rGO-solution interfaces varied by rGO thickness, coverage, and reduction temperature. rGO surfaces in our RFGFET structure displayed a Nernstian response of 54 mV/pH (from pH 2 to 11) with a 90% yield (9 samples out of total 10), coefficient of variation (CV) < 3%, and a low drift rate of 2%, all of which were calculated from the absolute measurement values. As proof-of-concept, we demonstrated highly reliable, reproducible, and label-free detection of spike proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a saliva-relevant media with concentrations ranging from 500 fg/mL to 5 μg/mL, with an R² value of 0.984 and CV < 3%, and a guaranteed limit of detection at a few pg/mL. Taken together, this new platform may have an immense effect on positioning FET bioelectronics in a clinical setting for detecting SARS-CoV-2.

Antigen vs RT-PCR Tests for Screening Quarantined Students in Florida During the COVID-19 Pandemic SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Surge

This diagnostic/prognostic study compares the results of antigen vs real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction tests among quarantined students 5 days after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during the surge of Delta variant cases in the COVID-19 pandemic.

OraSure InteliSwab™ Rapid Antigen Test Performance with the SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern—Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in the human population and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic have led to the development of various diagnostic tests. The OraSure InteliSwab^™ COVID-19 Rapid Test is a recently developed and FDA emergency use-authorized rapid antigen-detecting test that functions as a lateral flow device targeting the nucleocapsid protein. Due to SARS-CoV-2 evolution, there is a need to evaluate the sensitivity of rapid antigen-detecting tests for new variants, especially variants of concern such as Omicron. In this study, the sensitivity of the OraSure InteliSwab^™ Test was investigated using cultured strains of the known variants of concern (VOCs, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron) and the ancestral lineage (lineage A). Based on dilution series in cell culture medium, an approximate limit of detection for each variant was determined. The OraSure InteliSwab^™ Test showed an overall comparable performance using recombinant nucleocapsid protein and different cultured variants, with recorded limits of detection ranging between 3.77 × 10⁵ and 9.13 × 10⁵ RNA copies/mL. Finally, the sensitivity was evaluated using oropharyngeal swabs from Syrian golden hamsters inoculated with the six VOCs. Ultimately, the OraSure InteliSwab^™ COVID-19 Rapid Test showed no decrease in sensitivity between the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and any VOCs including Omicron.

Sensitive, smartphone-based SARS-CoV-2 detection from clinical saline gargle samples

Saliva specimens have drawn interest for diagnosing respiratory viral infections due to their ease of collection and decreased risk to healthcare providers. However, rapid and sensitive immunoassays have not yet been satisfactorily demonstrated for such specimens due to their viscosity and low viral loads. Using paper microfluidic chips and a smartphone-based fluorescence microscope, we developed a highly sensitive, low-cost immunofluorescence particulometric SARS-CoV-2 assay from clinical saline gargle samples. We demonstrated the limit of detection of 10 ag/μL. With easy-to-collect saline gargle samples, our clinical sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 100%, 86%, and 93%, respectively, for n = 27 human subjects with n = 13 RT-qPCR positives.

Highly Sensitive Immunoresistive Sensor for Point-Of-Care Screening for COVID-19

Current point-of-care (POC) screening of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requires further improvements to achieve highly sensitive, rapid, and inexpensive detection. Here we describe an immunoresistive sensor on a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film for simple, inexpensive, and highly sensitive COVID-19 screening. The sensor is composed of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) functionalized with monoclonal antibodies that bind to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Silver electrodes are silkscreen-printed on SWCNTs to reduce contact resistance. We determine the SARS-CoV-2 status via the resistance ratio of control- and SARS-CoV-2 sensor electrodes. A combined measurement of two adjacent sensors enhances the sensitivity and specificity of the detection protocol. The lower limit of detection (LLD) of the SWCNT assay is 350 genome equivalents/mL. The developed SWCNT sensor shows 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity in clinical sample testing. Further, our device adds benefits of a small form factor, simple operation, low power requirement, and low assay cost. This highly sensitive film sensor will facilitate rapid COVID-19 screening and expedite the development of POC screening platforms.

Detection of the omicron variant virus with the Abbott BinaxNow SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Assay

We assessed the ability of the BinaxNow rapid test to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen from 4 individuals with Omicron and Delta infections. We performed serial dilutions of nasal swab samples, and specimens with concentrations of ≥100 000 copies/swab were positive, demonstrating that the BinaxNow test is able to detect the Omicron variant.

The Performance of Two Rapid Antigen Tests During Population-Level Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays offer a rapid mean to diagnose and isolate infected individuals. However, their utility in population-level screening is unknown.

Objectives: The performance of two antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was assessed among individuals randomly selected in the community.

Study Design: A prospective study that performed head-to-head comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays. Individuals were recruited during community SARS-CoV-2 screening over 10 working days. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test, a point-of-care chromatographic assay, was conducted immediately, and then the sample was transported to the virology laboratory to perform PCR and the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminesence immunoassay.

Results: respiratory samples from 991 individuals were collected, and 62 were positive by PCR. Inconclusive PCR results were observed in 19 samples and were excluded. The median age of participants was 40.2 years (IQR 32.3–47.8), and 932 (94%) were males. Most (77.4%) of infections were asymptomatic. The sensitivity and the specificity of the LIAISON assay were 43.3% (95%CI 30.6–56.8) and 99.9% (95%CI 99.3–100). The Standard Q assay had lower sensitivity (30.6%, 95%CI 19.6–43.7) but similar specificity (98.8%, 95%CI, 97.8–99.4). Similarly, the LIAISON assay had higher positive predictive value (96.3%, 95%CI 81–99.9% vs. 63.3%, 95%CI, 43.9–80.1%). Both assays performed better in symptomatic patients and among samples with a low-cycle threshold (Ct < 25).

Conclusion: In our setting of random community surveillance, rapid antigen testing of nasopharyngeal swabs by either LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag (DiaSorin) or Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor) was less sensitive to detecting SARS-CoV-2 than the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR.

Highly sensitive and ultra-rapid antigen-based detection of SARS-CoV-2 using nanomechanical sensor platform

The rapid spread of COVID-19 including recent emergence of new variants with its extreme range of pathologies create an urgent need to develop a versatile sensor for a rapid, precise, and highly sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2. Herein, we report a microcantilever-based optical detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigenic proteins in just few minutes with high specificity by employing fluidic-atomic force microscopy (f-AFM) mediated nanomechanical deflection method. The corresponding antibodies against the target antigens were first grafted on the gold-coated microcantilever surface pre-functionalized with EDC-NHS chemistry for a suitable antibody-antigen interaction. Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S1) receptor binding domain (RBD) proteins was first demonstrated at a clinically relevant concentration down to 1 ng/mL (33 pM) by real-time monitoring of nanomechanical signal induced by antibody-antigen interaction. More importantly, we further show high specific detection of antigens with nasopharyngeal swab specimens from patients pre-determined with qRT-PCR. The results take less than 5 min (swab to signal ≤5 min) and exhibit high selectivity and analytical sensitivity (LoD: 100 copies/ ml; 0.71 ng/ml of N protein). These findings demonstrate potential for nanomechanical signal transduction towards rapid antigen detection for early screening of SARS-CoV-2 and its related mutants.

fM-aM Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen by Advanced Lateral Flow Immunoassay Based on Gold Nanospheres

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic created an unprecedented need for rapid, sensitive, and inexpensive point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests to treat and control the disease. Many POC SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) have been developed and/or commercialized, but with only limited sensitivity (μM-fM). We created an advanced LFA based on gold nanospheres (GNSs) with comprehensive assay redesign for enhanced specific binding and thermal contrast amplification (TCA) on GNSs for signal amplification, which enabled fM-aM detection sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) proteins within 30 min. The advanced LFA can visually detect RBD proteins down to 3.6 and 28.6 aM in buffer and human nasopharyngeal wash, respectively. This is the first reported LFA achieving sensitivity comparable to that of the PCR (aM-zM) by visual reading, which was much more sensitive than traditional LFAs. We also developed a fast (<1 min) TCA reading algorithm, with results showing that this TCA could distinguish 26-32% visual false negatives for clinical commercial LFAs. When our advanced LFAs were applied with this TCA, the sensitivities were further improved by eightfold to 0.45 aM (in buffer) and 3.6 aM (in the human nasopharyngeal wash) with a semiquantitative readout. Our proposed advanced LFA with a TCA diagnostic platform can help control the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Furthermore, the simplicity and speed with which this assay was assembled may also facilitate preparedness for future pandemics.

Implementation and Accuracy of BinaxNOW Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Test in Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Populations in a High-Volume Self-Referred Testing Site

Rapid antigen tests are simple to perform and provide results within 15 min. We describe our implementation and assess performance of the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Test (Abbott Laboratories) in 6,099 adults at a self-referred walk-up testing site. Participants were grouped by self-reported COVID-19 exposure and symptom status. Most (89%) were asymptomatic, of whom 17% reported potential exposure. Overall test sensitivity compared with reference laboratory reverse-transcription [RT] PCR testing was 81% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75%, 86%). It was higher in symptomatic (87%; 95% CI 80%, 91%) than asymptomatic (71%; 95% CI 61%, 80%) individuals. Sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for asymptomatic individuals with potential exposure and 64% (95% CI 51%, 76%) for those with no exposure. Specificity was greater than 99% for all groups. BinaxNOW has high accuracy among symptomatic individuals and is below the FDA threshold for emergency use authorization in asymptomatic individuals. Nonetheless, rapid antigen testing quickly identifies positive among those with symptoms and/or close contact exposure and could expedite isolation and treatment. IMPORTANCE The BinaxNOW rapid antigen COVID-19 test had a sensitivity of 87% in symptomatic and 71% asymptomatic individuals when performed by health care workers in a high-throughput setting. The performance may expedite isolation decisions or referrals for time-sensitive monoclonal antibody treatment in communities where timely COVID PCR tests are unavailable.

Handheld Microfluidic Filtration Platform Enables Rapid, Low-Cost, and Robust Self-Testing of SARS-CoV-2 Virus

Here, a novel microfluidic test kit combining ultrahigh throughput hydrodynamic filtration and sandwich immunoassay is reported. Specifically, nano and microbeads coated with two different, noncompetitive antibodies, are used to capture the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleocapsid (N) proteins simultaneously, forming larger complexes. Microfluidic filtration discards free nanobeads but retains antigen-bridged complexes in the observation zone, where a display of red color indicates the presence of antigen in the sample. This testing platform exhibits high throughput separation (<30 s) and enrichment of antigen that exceeds the traditional lateral flow assays or microfluidic assays, with a low limit of detection (LoD) < 100 copies mL-1 . In two rounds of clinical trials conducted in December 2020 and August 2021, the assays demonstrate high sensitivities of 95.4% and 100%, respectively, which proves this microfluidic test kit is capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 virus variants evolved over significant periods of time. Furthermore, the mass-produced chip can be fabricated at a cost of $0.98/test and the robust design allows the chip to be reused for over 50 times. All of these features make the microfluidic test kit particularly suitable for areas with inadequate medical infrastructure and a shortage of laboratory resources.

A SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic test for resource limited settings

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of COVID-19 disease. RT-qPCR has been the primary method of diagnosis; however, the required infrastructure is lacking in many developing countries and the virus has remained a global challenge. More inexpensive and immediate test methods are required to facilitate local, regional, and national management strategies to re-open world economies. Here we have developed a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in an inexpensive lateral flow format to generate a chromatographic result identifying the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen, and thus an active infection, within a patient anterior nares swab sample. Our 15-min test requires no equipment or laboratory infrastructure to administer with a limit of detection of 2.0 × 102 TCID50/mL and 87.5% sensitivity, 100% specificity when tested against 40 known positive and 40 known negative patient samples established by a validated RT-qPCR test.

Rapid and sensitive detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection using quantitative peptide enrichment LC-MS analysis

Reliable, robust, large-scale molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential for monitoring the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We have developed a scalable analytical approach to detect viral proteins based on peptide immuno-affinity enrichment combined with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). This is a multiplexed strategy, based on targeted proteomics analysis and read-out by LC-MS, capable of precisely quantifying and confirming the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) swab media from combined throat/nasopharynx/saliva samples. The results reveal that the levels of SARS-CoV-2 measured by LC-MS correlate well with their correspondingreal-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) read-out (r = 0.79). The analytical workflow shows similar turnaround times as regular RT-PCR instrumentation with a quantitative read-out of viral proteins corresponding to cycle thresholds (Ct) equivalents ranging from 21 to 34. Using RT-PCR as a reference, we demonstrate that the LC-MS-based method has 100% negative percent agreement (estimated specificity) and 95% positive percent agreement (estimated sensitivity) when analyzing clinical samples collected from asymptomatic individuals with a Ct within the limit of detection of the mass spectrometer (Ct ≤ 30). These results suggest that a scalable analytical method based on LC-MS has a place in future pandemic preparedness centers to complement current virus detection technologies.

Equipment-free detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Variants of Concern using Cas13

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the recent rise and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOCs), have demonstrated the need for ubiquitous nucleic acid testing outside of centralized clinical laboratories. Here, we develop SHINEv2, a Cas13-based nucleic acid diagnostic that combines quick and ambient temperature sample processing and lyophilized reagents to greatly simplify the test procedure and assay distribution. We benchmarked a SHINEv2 assay for SARS-CoV-2 detection against state-of-the-art antigen-capture tests using 96 patient samples, demonstrating 50-fold greater sensitivity and 100% specificity. We designed SHINEv2 assays for discriminating the Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta VOCs, which can be read out visually using lateral flow technology. We further demonstrate that our assays can be performed without any equipment in less than 90 minutes. SHINEv2 represents an important advance towards rapid nucleic acid tests that can be performed in any location.

A systematic review comparing at-home diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2: Key points for pharmacy practice, including regulatory information

BACKGROUND

Home-based rapid diagnostic testing can play an integral role in controlling the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to identify and compare at-home diagnostic tests that have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and convey details about COVID-19 diagnostic tests, including regulatory information, pertinent to pharmacy practice.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online resources pertaining to COVID-19 tests, EUAs, and medical devices were consulted, as were linked resources from FDA's webpages. Homepages of the 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs were comprehensively reviewed. PubMed literature searches were performed, most recently in May 2021, to locate literature about the identified home tests, as were searches of Google Scholar, medRxiv, and bioRxiv. Studies were included if they were performed at home or if subjects self-tested at study sites. Samples were collected by a parent or guardian for patients under 18 years of age. Positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was evaluated.

RESULTS

Limited data have been published for these home tests given that they are available through EUAs that do not require clinical trials. Fifteen studies were located from searching the literature, but only 2 met the inclusion criteria. Review of the home tests' websites yielded a single study for each test, with the 3 BinaxNOW platforms using the same study for their EUAs. The 9 COVID-19 home tests with EUAs as of May 7, 2021, include 3 molecular tests and 6 antigen tests. These tests had similar performance on the basis of PPA ranging from 83.5% to 97.4% and NPA ranging from 97% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The 9 SARS-CoV-2 home tests demonstrated satisfactory performance in comparison with laboratory real time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction tests. The convenience and ease of use of these tests make them well-suited for home-based rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Routine, Cost-Effective SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance Testing Using Pooled Saliva Limits Viral Spread on a Residential College Campus

Routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 is rare for institutes of higher education due to prohibitive costs and supply chain delays. During spring 2021, we routinely tested all residential students 1 to 2 times per week using pooled, RNA-extraction-free, reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) testing of saliva at a cost of $0.43/sample with same-day results. The limit of detection was 500 copies/ml on individual samples, and analysis indicates 1,000 and 2,500 copies/ml in pools of 5 and 10, respectively, which is orders of magnitude more sensitive than rapid antigen tests. Importantly, saliva testing flagged 83% of semester positives (43,884 tests administered) and was 95.6% concordant with nasopharyngeal diagnostic results (69.0% concordant on the first test when the nucleocapsid gene (N1) cycle threshold (CT) value was >30). Moreover, testing reduced weekly cases by 59.9% in the spring despite far looser restrictions, allowing for more normalcy while eliminating outbreaks. We also coupled our testing with a survey to clarify symptoms and transmissibility among college-age students. While only 8.5% remained asymptomatic throughout, symptoms were disparate and often cold-like (e.g., only 37.3% developed a fever), highlighting the difficulty with relying on symptom monitoring among this demographic. Based on reported symptom progression, we estimate that we removed 348 days of infectious individuals by routine testing. Interestingly, viral load (CT value) at the time of testing did not affect transmissibility (R2 = 0.0085), though those experiencing noticeable symptoms at the time of testing were more likely to spread the virus to close contacts (31.6% versus 14.3%). Together, our findings support routine testing for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Implementation of cost- and resource-efficient approaches should receive strong consideration in communities that lack herd immunity. IMPORTANCE This study highlights the utility of routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 using pooled saliva while maintaining high sensitivity of detection (under 2,500 copies/ml) and rapid turnaround of high volume (up to 930 samples in 8 h by two technicians and one quantitative PCR [qPCR] machine). This pooled approach allowed us to test all residential students 1 to 2 times per week on our college campus during the spring of 2021 and flagged 83% of our semester positives. Most students were asymptomatic or presented with symptoms mirroring common colds at the time of testing, allowing for removal of infectious individuals before they otherwise would have sought testing. To our knowledge, the total per-sample consumable cost of $0.43 is the lowest to date. With many communities still lagging in vaccination rates, routine testing that is cost-efficient highlights the capacity of the laboratory's role in controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Development of the RealTime SARS-CoV-2 quantitative Laboratory Developed Test and correlation with viral culture as a measure of infectivity

While diagnosis of COVID-19 relies on qualitative molecular testing for the absence or presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, quantitative viral load determination for SARS-CoV-2 has many potential applications in antiviral therapy and vaccine trials as well as implications for public health and quarantine guidance. To date, no quantitative SARS-CoV-2 viral load tests have been authorized for clinical use by the FDA. In this study, we modified the FDA emergency use authorized qualitative RealTime SARS-CoV-2 assay into a quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory Developed Test (LDT) using newly developed Abbott SARS-CoV-2 calibration standards. Both analytical and clinical performance of this SARS-CoV-2 quantitative LDT was evaluated using nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS). We further assessed the correlation between Ct and the ability to culture virus on Vero CCL81 cells. The SARS-CoV-2 quantitative LDT demonstrated high linearity with R2 value of 0.992, high inter- and intra-assay reproducibility across the dynamic range (SDs ± 0.08-0.14 log10 copies/mL for inter-assay reproducibility and ± 0.09 to 0.19 log10 copies/mL for intra-assay reproducibility). Lower limit of detection was determined as 1.90 log10 copies/mL. The highest Ct at which CPE was detected ranged between 28.21-28.49, corresponding to approximately 4.2 log10 copies/mL. Quantitative tests, validated against viral culture capacity, may allow more accurate identification of individuals with and without infectious viral shedding from the respiratory tract.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay to RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Peshawar

OBJECTIVES

Antigen based rapid diagnostic tests possesses a potential to be utilized along with Gold standard methods to detect Covid-19 infection to cope with the demand of testing. The aim of this study was to determine diagnostic accuracy of electrochemiluminescence based automated antigen detection immunoassay comparing with molecular based test RT-PCR (Covid-19).

METHODS

It was a cross-sectional study conducted in RMI Peshawar, from 1st April 2021 till 30th April 2021. The study comprised 170 individuals who were suspected of having Covid-19. Nasopharyngeal samples taken from suspected individuals were analyzed by RT-PCR and automated antigen test (Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen) simultaneously. The correlation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen with PCR positive and negative cases was analyzed for specificity, sensitivity respectively.

RESULTS

The ECLIA based Elecsys antigen test (Roche) revealed overall sensitivity 72%, specificity 95% and accuracy of 94.9%. Sensitivity of antigen test progressively declined from 94.3% in Ct <25 to 70.8% in Ct 26-29 and then to 47.2% in Ct 30-35.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of our study we conclude that automated antigen testing (Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen) cannot replace molecular based testing like RT PCR. Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Ag test should be used complementary to RT-PCR in testing algorithms. Frequent testing strategy should be adopted while using automated antigen testing to overcome its limitation in individuals with low viral loads.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

HIV and COVID-19: Lessons From HIV and STI Harm Reduction Strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the intersection of the COVID-19, HIV, and STI pandemics and examines how harm reduction strategies can be applied broadly to controlling a pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, remarkable advances in the understanding of COVID-19 prevention, diagnosis, and treatment have been made at a much faster pace than prior pandemics, yet much more still remains to be discovered. Many of the strategies to control the COVID-19 pandemic mirror those employed to stem the HIV pandemic. Harm reduction principles used in the HIV pandemic can be applied to reduce the morbidity and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic through effective prevention, detection, and treatment strategies.

A SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Variant that Affects Antigen Test Performance

More than one year into a global pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 is now defined by a variety of rapidly evolving variant lineages. Several FDA authorized molecular diagnostic tests have been impacted by viral variation, while no reports of viral variation affecting antigen test performance have occurred to date. While determining the analytical sensitivity of the Quidel Sofia SARS Antigen FIA test (Sofia 2), we uncovered a high viral load specimen that repeatedly tested negative by this antigen test. Whole genome sequencing of the specimen uncovered two mutations, T205I and D399N, present in the nucleocapsid protein of the isolate. All six SARS-CoV-2 positive clinical specimens available in our laboratory with a D399N nucleocapsid mutation and C_T < 31 were not detected by the Sofia 2 but detected by the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card, while clinical specimens with the T205I mutation were detected by both assays. Testing of recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid with these variants demonstrated an approximate 1000-fold loss in sensitivity for the Quidel Sofia SARS Antigen FIA test associated with the D399N mutation, while the BinaxNOW and Quidel Quickvue SARS Antigen tests were unaffected by the mutation. The D399N nucleocapsid mutation has been relatively uncommon to date, appearing in only 0.02% of genomes worldwide at time of writing. Our results demonstrate how routine pathogen genomics can be integrated into the clinical microbiology laboratory to investigate diagnostic edge cases, as well as the importance of profiling antigenic diversity outside of the spike protein for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent of COVID-19. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection is a critical element of the public health response to COVID-19. Point-of-care (POC) tests can drive patient management decisions for infectious diseases, including COVID-19. POC tests are available for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections and include those that detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens as well as amplified RNA sequences. We provide a review of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests including their performance, settings for which they might be used, their impact and future directions. Further optimization and validation, new technologies as well as studies to determine clinical and epidemiological impact of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests are needed.

Exponential Amplification Using Photoredox Autocatalysis

Exponential molecular amplification such as the polymerase chain reaction is a powerful tool that allows ultrasensitive biodetection. Here, we report a new exponential amplification strategy based on photoredox autocatalysis, where eosin Y, a photocatalyst, amplifies itself by activating a nonfluorescent eosin Y derivative (EYH^3-) under green light. The deactivated photocatalyst is stable and rapidly activated under low-intensity light, making the eosin Y amplification suitable for resource-limited settings. Through steady-state kinetic studies and reaction modeling, we found that EYH^3- is either oxidized to eosin Y via one-electron oxidation by triplet eosin Y and subsequent 1e^-/H⁺ transfer, or activated by singlet oxygen with the risk of degradation. By reducing the rate of the EYH^3- degradation, we successfully improved EYH^3--to-eosin Y recovery, achieving efficient autocatalytic eosin Y amplification. Additionally, to demonstrate its flexibility in output signals, we coupled the eosin Y amplification with photoinduced chromogenic polymerization, enabling sensitive visual detection of analytes. Finally, we applied the exponential amplification methods in developing bioassays for detection of biomarkers including SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein, an antigen used in the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Performance of Repeat BinaxNOW Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antigen Testing in a Community Setting, Wisconsin, November 2020-December 2020

Repeating the BinaxNOW antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 by two groups of readers within 30 minutes resulted in high concordance (98.9%) in 2,110 encounters. BinaxNOW test sensitivity was 77.2% (258/334) compared to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Same day antigen testing did not significantly improve test sensitivity while specificity remained high.

Analytical sensitivity and specificity of four point of care rapid antigen diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 using real-time quantitative PCR, quantitative droplet digital PCR, and a mass spectrometric antigen assay as comparator methods

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the analytical sensitivity and specificity of four rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2, using reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) as the reference method; and further characterizing samples using droplet digital quantitative PCR (ddPCR) and a mass spectrometric antigen test.

METHODS

350 (150 negative and 200 RT-qPCR positive) residual phosphate buffered saline (PBS) samples were tested for antigen using the BD Veritor lateral flow (LF), ACON LF, ACON fluorescence immunoassay (FIA), and LumiraDx FIA. ddPCR was performed on RT-qPCR positive samples to quantitate the viral load in copies/mL applied to each Ag RDT. Mass spectrometric antigen testing was performed on PBS samples to obtain a set of RT-qPCR positive, antigen positive samples for further analysis.

RESULTS

All Ag RDTs had nearly 100% specificity compared to RT-qPCR. Overall analytical sensitivity varied from 66.5% to 88.3%. All methods detected antigen in samples with viral load >1,500,000 copies/mL RNA, and detected ≥75% of samples with viral load of 500,000 to 1,500,000 copies/mL. The BD Veritor LF detected only 25% of samples with viral load between 50,000-500,000 copies/mL, compared to 75% for the ACON LF device and >80% for LumiraDx and ACON FIA. The ACON FIA detected significantly more samples with viral load <50,000 copies/mL compared to the BD Veritor. Among samples with detectable antigen and viral load <50,000 copies/mL, sensitivity of the Ag RDT varied between 13.0% (BD Veritor) and 78.3% (ACON FIA).

CONCLUSIONS

Ag RDTs differ significantly in analytical sensitivity, particularly at viral load <500,000 copies/mL.

Surveillance testing for SARS-COV-2 infection in an asymptomatic athlete population: a prospective cohort study with 123 362 tests and 23 463 paired RT-PCR/antigen samples

Objective

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antigen compared with reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR testing in an asymptomatic athlete screening programme and to monitor infection in college athletes.

Methods

Quidel Sofia-2 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Tests were performed daily before sports participation for football, basketball, wrestling and water polo from 29 September 2020 to 28 February 2021. Paired RT-PCR and antigen tests were performed at least once a week. Positive antigen tests were confirmed with RT-PCR.

Results

81 175 antigen and 42 187 RT-PCR tests were performed, including 23 462 weekly paired antigen/RT-PCR screening tests in 1931 athletes. One hundred and seventy-two athletes had a positive screening RT-PCR (0.4%), of which 83 (48%) occurred on paired testing days. The sensitivity of antigen tests varied with the frequency of RT-PCR testing and prevalence of COVID-19. The sensitivity of antigen testing was 35.7% (95% CI: 17% to 60%) and specificity 99.8% (95% CI: 99.7% to 99.9%) with once-a-week RT-PCR testing after adjusting for school prevalence. Daily antigen testing was similar to RT-PCR testing two to three times a week in identifying infection. Antigen testing identified infection before the next scheduled PCR on 89 occasions and resulted in 234 days where potentially infectious athletes were isolated before they would have been isolated with RT-PCR testing alone. Two athletic-related outbreaks occurred; 86% of total infections were community acquired.

Conclusion

Antigen testing has high specificity with a short turnaround time but is not as sensitive as RT-PCR. Daily antigen testing or RT-PCR testing two to three times a week is similar. There are benefits and drawbacks to each testing approach.

Test it earlier, result it faster, makes us stronger: how rapid viral diagnostics enable therapeutic success

The COVID-19 pandemic has entailed simultaneous revolutions in virology diagnostics, clinical trials management, and antiviral therapy and vaccinology. Over the past year, SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing has moved from highly centralized laboratories to at-home and even over the-counter. This transition has been lionized for its potential public health impact via isolation, but has been less examined for its effect on individual health and therapeutics. Since early initiation of antiviral therapy routinely has been associated with greater treatment efficacy for viral infections, these diagnostic testing innovations offer new opportunities for both clinical testing as well as clinical trials for antiviral therapy. Given a rapidly growing antiviral therapeutic pipeline and the profound impact of individual beneficiary outcomes on sculpting reimbursement policy, the therapeutic benefits associated with rapid viral testing may lead to significant adoption beyond potential public health impacts.

Laboratory tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection: basic principles and examples

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has circulated throughout the world causing the worst pandemic since 1918. All efforts have been marshalled towards testing different treatment approaches, obtaining clinical and epidemiological information, developing suitable diagnostic tests, and developing new vaccines. New ribonucleic acid (RNA)-based and viral vector-based vaccines have been developed and licensed under emergency use in many countries; however, there is a huge demand for vaccines, and it will take some time before a sufficient number of people are vaccinated to stop the circulation of the virus. Therefore, the proper diagnosis and identification of infected individuals are crucial for the isolation and treatment of these patients and tracing of their contacts. Many diagnostic tests and diag-nostic kits have been developed in a relatively short time. This review summarizes the principles of the available laboratory assays that are in use for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, antigens, or antibodies.

Just 2% of SARS-CoV-2−positive individuals carry 90% of the virus circulating in communities

We analyzed data from saliva-based COVID-19 screening deployed on the University of Colorado Boulder campus. Our dataset is unique in that all SARS-CoV-2−positive individuals reported no symptoms at the time of saliva collection, and therefore were infected but asymptomatic or presymptomatic. We found that 1) the distribution of viral loads observed in our asymptomatic college population was indistinguishable from what has been reported in hospitalized populations; 2) regardless of symptomatic status, approximately 50% of individuals who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 seem to be in noninfectious phases of the infection; and 3) just 2% of infected individuals carry 90% of the virions circulating within communities, serving as viral “supercarriers” and likely also superspreaders.