Evaluation of performance of two SARS-CoV-2 Rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody tests on capillary whole blood samples from the fingertip

High-Altitude Environment and COVID-19: SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity in the Highest City in the World

Champigneulle, Benoit, Ivan Hancco, Richard Renan, Stéphane Doutreleau, Emeric Stauffer, Aurélien Pichon, Julien V. Brugniaux, Hélène Péré, Pierre Bouzat, David Veyer, and Samuel Verges. High-altitude environment and COVID-19: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in the highest city in the world. High Alt Med Biol. 22: 000-000, 2021. Background: A reduced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diffusion has been suggested in high-altitude areas but remained questionable. Aims of this study were to estimate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity as well as the risk factors associated in La Rinconada, the highest city in the world (5,100-5,300 m), a gold-mining town located in southeastern Peru where >50,000 dwellers live in precarious sanitary conditions. Materials and Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study during a 1-week period in October 2020, using point-of-care lateral flow serological assays allowing detection of antibodies directed against SARS-CoV-2 among voluntary dwellers in La Rinconada. Participants were also questioned about potential occupational and environmental risk factors of COVID-19 occurrence. Results: In a sample of 159 dwellers tested in La Rinconada, 48.4% [95% confidence interval, CI: 40.5-56.4] were seropositive for the SARS-CoV-2. Occurrence of at least one symptom compatible with the COVID-19 over the past 6 months remained the only significant factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity (adjusted odds ratio: 3.27; [95% CI: 1.70-6.44]; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The high rate of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity observed in this small sample of highlanders does not support a protective effect of high-altitude against the COVID-19 spread and demonstrates its large dissemination in vulnerable populations. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04604249.

Clinical Characteristics, Diagnosis, and Therapeutics of COVID-19: A Review

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that suddenly emerged at the end of December 2019 and caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to afflict humanity, not only seriously affecting healthcare systems but also leading to global social and economic imbalances. As of August 2022, there were approximately 580 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and approximately 6.4 million confirmed deaths due to this disease. The data are sufficient to highlight the seriousness of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although most patients with COVID-19 present primarily with respiratory symptoms, an increasing number of extrapulmonary systemic symptoms and manifestations have been associated with COVID-19. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, much has been learned about the disease and its causative agent. Therefore, great effort has been aimed at developing treatments and drug interventions to treat and reduce the incidence of COVID-19. In this narrative review, we provide a brief overview of the epidemiology, mechanisms, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and therapeutics of COVID-19.

Successful pandemic management through computer science: a case study of a financial corporation with workers on premises

Background

In November 2019, an infectious agent that caused a severe acute respiratory illness was first detected in China. Its rapid spread resulted in a global lockdown with negative economic impacts. In this regard, we expose the solutions proposed by a multinational financial institution that maintained their workers on premises, so this methodology can be applied to possible future health crisis.

Objectives

To ensure a secure workplace for the personnel on premises employing biomedical prevention measures and computational tools.

Methods

Professionals were subjected to recurrent COVID-19 diagnostic tests during the pandemic. The sanitary team implemented an individual following to all personnel and introduced the information in databases. The data collected were used for clustering algorithms, decision trees, and networking diagrams to predict outbreaks in the workplace. Individualized control panels assisted the decision-making process to increase, maintain, or relax restrictive measures.

Results

55,789 diagnostic tests were performed. A positive correlation was observed between the cumulative incidence reported by Madrid's Ministry of Health and the headcount. No correlation was observed for occupational infections, representing 1.9% of the total positives. An overall 1.7% of the cases continued testing positive for COVID-19 after 14 days of quarantine.

Conclusion

Based on a combined approach of medical and computational science tools, we propose a management model that can be extended to other industries that can be applied to possible future health crises. This work shows that this model resulted in a safe workplace with a low probability of infection among workers during the pandemic.

New detection method of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies toward a point-of-care biosensor

The outbreak of COVID-19, a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, is regarded as the most severe of the documented coronavirus pandemics. The measurement and monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels by serological tests are relevant for a better epidemiological and clinical understanding of COVID-19. The aim of this work was to design a method called the SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection method (SARS-CoV-2 AbDM) for fluorescence immunodetection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM on both plate and microfluidic chip. For this purpose, a system with magnetic beads that immobilize the antigen (S protein and RBD) on its surface was used to determine the presence and quantity of antibodies in a sample in a single reaction. The SARS-CoV-2 AbDM led to several advantages in the performance of the tests, such as reduced cost, possibility of performing isolated or multiple samples, potential of multiplex detection, and capacity to detect whole blood samples without losing resolution. In addition, due to the microfluidic chip in conjunction with the motorized actuated platform, the time, sample quantity, and operator intervention during the process were reduced. All these advantages suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 AbDM has the potential to be developed as a PoC that can be used as a tool for seroprevalence monitoring, allowing a better understanding of the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 and contributing to more effective and ethical decision-making in strategies to fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 seroprevalence among local authority workers from Orléans Métropole, the Community of Communes of the Terres du Val de Loire, the local public service management centre of the Loiret department and the Region Centre Val de Loire: a prospective epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among local authority workers, depending on their position and potential interaction with the public.

METHODS

A cohort of volunteer participants was recruited among local authority workers of the Centre Val de Loire region in France, to be tested using a rapid serological test (COVID-PRESTO). The collected data were analysed by comparing different parameters including, gender, age, position held, and contact or not with the public. The study was carried out from August to December 2020 and included 3228 participants (n=3228), from 18 to 65 years old.

RESULTS

The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among local authority workers was estimated at 3.04%. No significant difference could be observed according to the position held by the workers and whether they were or not in contact with the public. Nevertheless, a significant difference was observed between the different investigating centres, in correlation with the geographical location.

CONCLUSION

Contact with members of the public was not a critical parameter for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence as long as protective measures are applied. Among the population included in the study, childcare workers were more at risk of getting infected by the virus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04387968.

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.

Transforming Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Precision Public Health: Open Guidelines for Manufacturers and Users

BACKGROUND

Precision public health (PPH) can maximize impact by targeting surveillance and interventions by temporal, spatial, and epidemiological characteristics. Although rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have enabled ubiquitous point-of-care testing in low-resource settings, their impact has been less than anticipated, owing in part to lack of features to streamline data capture and analysis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to transform the RDT into a tool for PPH by defining information and data axioms and an information utilization index (IUI); identifying design features to maximize the IUI; and producing open guidelines (OGs) for modular RDT features that enable links with digital health tools to create an RDT-OG system.

METHODS

We reviewed published papers and conducted a survey with experts or users of RDTs in the sectors of technology, manufacturing, and deployment to define features and axioms for information utilization. We developed an IUI, ranging from 0% to 100%, and calculated this index for 33 World Health Organization-prequalified RDTs. RDT-OG specifications were developed to maximize the IUI; the feasibility and specifications were assessed through developing malaria and COVID-19 RDTs based on OGs for use in Kenya and Indonesia.

RESULTS

The survey respondents (n=33) included 16 researchers, 7 technologists, 3 manufacturers, 2 doctors or nurses, and 5 other users. They were most concerned about the proper use of RDTs (30/33, 91%), their interpretation (28/33, 85%), and reliability (26/33, 79%), and were confident that smartphone-based RDT readers could address some reliability concerns (28/33, 85%), and that readers were more important for complex or multiplex RDTs (33/33, 100%). The IUI of prequalified RDTs ranged from 13% to 75% (median 33%). In contrast, the IUI for an RDT-OG prototype was 91%. The RDT open guideline system that was developed was shown to be feasible by (1) creating a reference RDT-OG prototype; (2) implementing its features and capabilities on a smartphone RDT reader, cloud information system, and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources; and (3) analyzing the potential public health impact of RDT-OG integration with laboratory, surveillance, and vital statistics systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Policy makers and manufacturers can define, adopt, and synergize with RDT-OGs and digital health initiatives. The RDT-OG approach could enable real-time diagnostic and epidemiological monitoring with adaptive interventions to facilitate control or elimination of current and emerging diseases through PPH.

First Results of an External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme for Molecular, Serological and Antigenic Diagnostic Test for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Lombardy Region (Northern Italy), 2020–2022

For diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and for monitoring its spread, the implementation of external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is mandatory to assess and ensure a standard quality according to national and international guidelines. Here, we present the results of the 2020, 2021, 2022 EQA schemes in Lombardy region for assessing the quality of the diagnostic laboratories involved in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. In the framework of the Quality Assurance Programs (QAPs), the routinely EQA schemes are managed by the regional reference centre for diagnostic laboratories quality (RRC-EQA) of the Lombardy region and are carried out by all the diagnostic laboratories. Three EQA programs were organized: (1) EQA of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection; (2) EQA of anti-SARS-CoV-2-antibody testing; (3) EQA of SARS-CoV-2 direct antigens detection. The percentage of concordance of 1938 molecular tests carried out within the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection EQA was 97.7%. The overall concordance of 1875 tests carried out within the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody EQA was 93.9% (79.6% for IgM). The overall concordance of 1495 tests carried out within the SARS-CoV-2 direct antigens detection EQA was 85% and it was negatively impacted by the results obtained by the analysis of weak positive samples. In conclusion, the EQA schemes for assessing the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in the Lombardy region highlighted a suitable reproducibility and reliability of diagnostic assays, despite the heterogeneous landscape of SARS-CoV-2 tests and methods. Laboratory testing based on the detection of viral RNA in respiratory samples can be considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

Diagnostic utility of antigen detection rapid diagnostic tests for Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The early detection of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection to improve disease management becomes the greatest challenge. Despite the high sensitivity of RT-PCR, not only it was reported that 20-67% of infected patients had false-negative results. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used as a point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in pharyngeal and blood specimens. It's more appealing since it's less time-consuming, doesn't seem to be as expensive, and doesn't need any specific training, but the poor sensitivity is the major limitation. Several reports indicated the rapid test of blood and pharyngeal samples has the same sensitivity as the RT-PCR, but some reports have lower sensitivity, especially in asymptomatic patients.

METHODS

In the present survey, we investigate the eligible studies for the sensitivity and specificity of rapid tests and explore the factors that influence the result to help better diagnose COVID-19 infection. 20 studies met the inclusion criteria which imposed 33 different tests.

RESULTS

Our findings showed the type of sample, the type of assay, the time of sampling, and the load of virus influence on the sensitivity of RDTs.

CONCLUSION

This research extends our knowledge of how to improve the sensitivity of RDTs to better diagnose the infected patients to address the controlling COVID-19 pandemic.

Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Paris/Ile-de-France area

This st udy aims to evaluate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in locked-down family households to determine viral dynamics and immunity acquisition. COVID-19 individuals and their households in lockdown under the same roof during early spring 2020 were interviewed and tested using rapid immunochromatographic lateral flow antibodies assays (LFA) between July and September 2020. Outcomes were secondary infection rate (SIR) among contacts, household infection rate, and predictors of transmission. We enrolled 87 households including 87 COVID-19 index cases (female 78.2%; median age: 47.0 years, IQR: 42.0-51.5) and 255 contacts (males: 52.9%; median age: 19.0 years, IQR: 11.0-43.5) consisting of their children (42%) or spouses/partners (28.2%). A total of 95/255 contacts were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive leading to a SIR of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 31.3-43.5%). Viral transmission was observed in 54 households (62%). SARS-CoV-2 infection was asymptomatic in 33/95 (34.7%) of SARS-CoV-2-positive contacts. Independent predictors of virus transmission from index to contacts were housing surface area < 60 m2 (OR: 5.6 [1.1; 28.2] and a four-member family compared to five (OR: 3.6 [1.2; 10.3]). Households represent a high-risk setting for SARS-CoV-2 transmission through close contact within the family amplified by the number of family members and the housing surface area.

The Complexity of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to the death of millions of people worldwide and thousands more infected individuals developed sequelae due to the disease of the new coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19). The development of several studies has contributed to the knowledge about the evolution of SARS-CoV2 infection and the disease to more severe forms. Despite this information being debated in the scientific literature, many mechanisms still need to be better understood in order to control the spread of the virus and treat clinical cases of COVID-19. In this article, we carried out an extensive literature review in order to bring together, in a single article, the biological, social, genetic, diagnostic, therapeutic, immunization, and even socioeconomic aspects that impact the SAR-CoV-2 pandemic. This information gathered in this article will enable a broad and consistent reading of the main aspects related to the current pandemic.

MFBCNNC: Momentum factor biogeography convolutional neural network for COVID-19 detection via chest X-ray images

Aim:

By October 6, 2020, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was diagnosed worldwide, reaching 3,355,7427 people and 1,037,862 deaths. Detection of COVID-19 and pneumonia by the chest X-ray images is of great significance to control the development of the epidemic situation. The current COVID-19 and pneumonia detection system may suffer from two shortcomings: the selection of hyperparameters in the models is not appropriate, and the generalization ability of the model is poor.

Method:

To solve the above problems, our team proposed an improved intelligent global optimization algorithm, which is based on the biogeography-based optimization to automatically optimize the hyperparameters value of the models according to different detection objectives. In the optimization progress, after selecting the immigration of suitable index vector and the emigration of suitable index vector, we proposed adding a comparison operation to compare the value of them. According to the different numerical relationships between them, the corresponding operations are performed to improve the migration operation of biogeography-based optimization. The improved algorithm (momentum factor biogeography-based optimization) can better perform the automatic optimization operation. In addition, our team also proposed two frameworks: biogeography convolutional neural network and momentum factor biogeography convolutional neural network. And two methods for detection COVID-19 based on the proposed frameworks.

Results:

Our method used three convolutional neural networks (LeNet-5, VGG-16, and ResNet-18) as the basic classification models for chest X-ray images detection of COVID-19, Normal, and Pneumonia. The accuracy of LeNet-5, VGG-16, and ResNet-18 is improved by 1.56%, 1.48%, and 0.73% after using biogeography-based optimization to optimize the hyperparameters of the models. The accuracy of LeNet-5, VGG-16, and ResNet-18 is improved by 2.87%, 6.31%, and 1.46% after using the momentum factor biogeography-based optimization to optimize the hyperparameters of the models.

Conclusion:

Under the same experimental conditions, the performance of the momentum factor biogeography-based optimization is superior to the biogeography-based optimization in optimizing the hyperparameters of the convolutional neural networks. Experimental results show that the momentum factor biogeography-based optimization can improve the detection performance of the state-of-the-art approaches in terms of overall accuracy. In future research, we will continue to use and improve other global optimization algorithms to enhance the application ability of deep learning in medical pathological image detection.

Design of a population-based longitudinal cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 incidence and prevalence among adults in the San Francisco Bay Area

Purpose

We describe the design of a longitudinal cohort study to determine SARS-CoV-2 incidence and prevalence among a population-based sample of adults living in six San Francisco Bay Area counties.

Methods

Using an address-based sample, we stratified households by county and by census-tract risk. Risk strata were determined by using regression models to predict infections by geographic area using census-level sociodemographic and health characteristics. We disproportionately sampled high and medium risk strata, which had smaller population sizes, to improve precision of estimates, and calculated a desired sample size of 3400. Participants were primarily recruited by mail and were followed monthly with PCR testing of nasopharyngeal swabs, testing of venous blood samples for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antigens, and testing of the presence of neutralizing antibodies, with completion of questionnaires about socio-demographics and behavior. Estimates of incidence and prevalence will be weighted by county, risk strata and sociodemographic characteristics of non-responders, and will take into account laboratory test performance.

Results

We enrolled 3842 adults from August to December 2020, and completed follow-up March 31, 2021. We reached target sample sizes within most strata.

Conclusions

Our stratified random sampling design will allow us to recruit a robust general population cohort of adults to determine the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Identifying risk strata was unique to the design and will help ensure precise estimates, and high-performance testing for presence of virus and antibodies will enable accurate ascertainment of infections.

Validation of rapid antibody (IgG-IgM) test kit for SARS COV-2 infection in Qatar

Background: In response to the growing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the shortage of laboratory based molecular testing capacity and reagents, multiple diagnostic test manufacturers have developed rapid and easy to use devices to facilitate testing outside laboratory settings. These kits are either based on detection of proteins from SARS-CoV-2 virus or detection of antigen or human antibodies generated in response to the infection. However, it is important to understand their performance characteristics and they must be validated in the local population setting.

Design and methods: The objective is to assess the validity of the rapid test for IgG and IgM immunoglobulins compared to the current gold standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. A total of 16951 asymptomatic individuals were tested by the Ministry of Public Health track-and-trace team using both rapid immunodiagnostic test and RT-PCR as part of screening across various random settings with potential risk of community interaction prior to gradual lifting of restrictions in Qatar. Rapid test was considered to be posiive if both IgG and IgM are positive, while only IgG/IgM positive was considered as rapid test negative. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.

Results: The sensitivity of rapid test kit was found to be 0.9%, whereas the specificity was found to be 97.8%. the PPV was found to be 0.3% whereas the NPV was found to be 99.4%.

Conclusions: Based on the outcome and results of the study, it appears that the sensitivity and PPV of the rapid antibody test are low. As such, this test is not recommended for use to assist in taking clinic-based decisions or decisions related to quarantine/isolation.

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.

Evaluation of a new point-of-care quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain test for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection is rapidly spreading worldwide, and the resultant disease, coronavirus disease (COVID‐19), has become a global pandemic. Although there are multiple methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2, there are some issues with such tests, including long processing time, expense, low sensitivity, complexity, risk of contamination, and user friendly. This study evaluated the reproducibility and usability of a new point‐of‐care test (POCT) using real‐time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT‐PCR) for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2.

Methods

Samples from 96 patients with suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were assessed using the real‐time qRT‐PCR‐based POCT and the conventional real‐time qRT‐PCR method based on the Japanese National Institute of Infectious Diseases guidelines (registration number: jRCT1032200025).

Results

The real‐time qRT‐PCR‐based POCT had a positive agreement rate of 90.0% (18/20), a negative agreement rate of 100% (76/76), and a total agreement rate of 97.9% (94/96), and the significantly high score of questionnaire survey (total score p < 0.0001). In the two cases in which real‐time qRT‐PCR‐based POCT results did not match conventional real‐time qRT‐PCR test results, the SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA copy numbers were 8.0 copies per test in one case and below the detection limit in the other case when quantified using conventional real‐time qRT‐PCR. All patients could be triaged within 1 day using the real‐time qRT‐PCR‐based POCT without invalid reports.

Conclusions

The real‐time qRT‐PCR‐based POCT not only had high reproducibility and useability but also allowed rapid patient triage. Therefore, it may be helpful in clinical settings.

A comparative review of immunoassays for COVID-19 detection

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection in general practice in Ireland: a seroprevalence study

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in community settings may help us better understand the immune response to this virus and, therefore, help guide public health efforts.

Aim

To conduct a seroprevalence study of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies in Irish GP clinics.

Design & setting

Participants were 172 staff and 799 patients from 15 general practices in the Midwest region of Ireland.

Method

This seroprevalence study utilised two manufacturers’ point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM)—IgG combined antibody tests, which were offered to patients and staff in general practice from 15 June to 10 July 2020.

Results

IgG seroprevalence was 12.6% in patients attending general practice and 11.1% in staff working in general practice, with administrative staff having the lowest seroprevalence at 2.5% and nursing staff having the highest at 17.6%. Previous symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 and history of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test were associated with higher seroprevalence. IgG antibodies were detected in approximately 80% of participants who had a previous PCR-confirmed infection. Average length of time between participants’ positive PCR test and positive IgG antibody test was 83 days.

Conclusion

Patients and healthcare staff in general practice in Ireland had relatively high rates of IgG to SARS-CoV-2 compared with the national average between 15 June and 10 July 2020 (1.7%). Four-fifths of participants with a history of confirmed COVID-19 disease still had detectable antibodies an average of 12 weeks post-infection. While not proof of immunity, SARS-CoV-2 POC testing can be used to estimate IgG seroprevalence in general practice settings.

Diagnostic Properties of Three SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests

Serological assays emerged as complementary tools to RT-PCR in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 as well as being needed for epidemiological studies. This study aimed to assess the performance of a rapid test (RT) compared to that of serological tests using finger prick blood samples. A total of 183 samples were evaluated, 88 of which were collected from individuals with negative RT-PCR and 95 from positive RT-PCR individuals. The diagnostic performance of RT (WONDFO^®) and LUMIT (PROMEGA^®) were compared to that of ELISA (EUROIMMUN^®) for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 according to time from symptoms onset. The IgG antibody tests were detected in 77.4% (LUMIT), 77.9% (RT), and 80.0% (ELISA) of individuals. The detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 increases in accordance with increasing time from symptoms onset. Considering only time from symptoms onset >21 days, the positivity rate ranged from 81.8 to 97.0% between the three tests. The RT and LUMIT showed high agreement with ELISA (agreement = 91.5%, k = 0.83, and agreement = 96.3%, k = 0.9, respectively) in individuals who had symptoms 15 to 21 days before sample collection. Compared to that of the ELISA assay, our results show sensitivity ranged from 95% to 100% for IgG antibody detection in individuals with symptoms onset between 15 and 21 days before sample collection. The specificity was 100% in individuals with symptoms onset >15 days before serological tests. This study shows good performance and high level of agreement of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Science's Response to CoVID-19

CoVID-19 is a multi-symptomatic disease which has made a global impact due to its ability to spread rapidly, and its relatively high mortality rate. Beyond the heroic efforts to develop vaccines, which we do not discuss herein, the response of scientists and clinicians to this complex problem has reflected the need to detect CoVID-19 rapidly, to diagnose patients likely to show adverse symptoms, and to treat severe and critical CoVID-19. Here we aim to encapsulate these varied and sometimes conflicting approaches and the resulting data in terms of chemistry and biology. In the process we highlight emerging concepts, and potential future applications that may arise out of this immense effort.

Performance of five rapid serological tests in mild-diseased subjects using finger prick blood for exposure assessment to SARS-CoV-2

OBJECTIVES

Assess the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests (RST) using finger prick (FP) blood on-site to evaluate their usability for exposure assessment in population-based seroprevalence studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Since cross-reactivity with common cold human coronaviruses occurs, serological testing includes a risk of false-positive results. Therefore, the selected cohort for RST-validation was based on combined immunoassay (presence of specific antibodies) and RT-qPCR (presence of SARS-CoV-2) data. RST-performance for FP blood and serum was assessed by performing each RST in two groups, namely SARSCoV- 2 positive (n=108) and negative healthcare workers (n=89). Differences in accuracy and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated for a range (1-50%) of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates.

RESULTS

The OrientGene showed overall acceptable performance, with sensitivities of 94.4% and 100%, and specificities of 96.6% and 94.4%, using FP blood and serum, respectively. Although three RST reach optimal specificities (100%), the OrientGene clearly outperforms in sensitivity. At a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence rate of 40%, this RST outperforms the other tests in NPV (96.3%) and reaches comparable PPV (94.9%). Although the specificity of the Covid-Presto is excellent when using FP blood or serum (100% and 97.8%, respectively), its sensitivity decreases when using FP blood (76.9%) compared to serum (98.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Performances of the evaluated RST differ largely. Only one out of five RST (OrientGene) had acceptable sensitivity and specificity using FP blood. Therefore, the latter could be used for seroprevalence studies in a high-prevalence situation. The OrientGene, which measures anti-RBD antibodies, can be valuable after vaccination as well.

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID‑19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT‑PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)‑based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID‑19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID‑19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT‑PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)‑based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID‑19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Ivory Coast: A Serosurveillance Survey among Gold Mine Workers

Of the 107 million COVID-19 cases worldwide, less than 2 million have been reported in African countries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Ivory Coast mine workers. From July 15 to October 13, 2020, a voluntary serological test campaign was conducted in 3 sites: two gold mines, and the headquarters in Abidjan. Rapid tests to detect IgG and IgM on capillary blood were performed. To identify independent sociodemographic characteristics associated with a higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. A total of 1,687 subjects were tested; 91% were male (n = 1,536), and the mean age was 37 years. The overall seroprevalence was 25.1% (n = 422), ranging between 13.6% (11.2-16.1%), 34.4% (31.1-37.7%), and 34.7% (26.2-43.2%) in mine A, in mine B, and in Abidjan, respectively. Among the 422 seropositive subjects, 74 reported mild symptoms in the three previous months and one was hospitalized for severe COVID-19 infection. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence is high in both gold miners and administrative staff working in Ivory Coast. The burden of infection in West Africa has probably been underestimated till now.

Diagnostic Value of IgM and IgG Detection in COVID-19 Diagnosis by the Mobile Laboratory B-LiFE: A Massive Testing Strategy in the Piedmont Region

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) identified in 2019. The COVID-19 outbreak continues to have devastating consequences for human lives and the global economy. The B-LiFe mobile laboratory in Piedmont, Italy, was deployed for the surveillance of COVID-19 cases by large-scale testing of first responders. The objective was to assess the seroconversion among the regional civil protection (CP), police, health care professionals, and volunteers. The secondary objective was to detect asymptomatic individuals within this cohort in the light of age, sex, and residence. In this paper, we report the results of serological testing performed by the B-LiFe mobile laboratory deployed from 10 June to 23 July 2020. The tests included whole blood finger-prick and serum sampling for detection of SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (S-RBD) antibodies. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was approximately 5% (294/6013). The results of the finger-prick tests and serum sample analyses showed moderate agreement (kappa = 0.77). Furthermore, the detection rates of serum antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) and S-RBD among the seroconverted individuals were positively correlated (kappa = 0.60), at least at the IgG level. Seroprevalence studies based on serological testing for the S-RBD protein or SARS-CoV-2 NP antibodies are not sufficient for diagnosis but might help in screening the population to be vaccinated and in determining the duration of seroconversion.

Comparison of Antibody Class-Specific SARS-CoV-2 Serologies for the Diagnosis of Acute COVID-19

Accurate diagnosis of acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is critical for appropriate management of patients with this disease. We examined the possible complementary role of laboratory-developed class-specific clinical serology in assessing SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized patients. Serological tests for immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgA, and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated using samples from real-time reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (qRT-PCR)-confirmed inpatient coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. We analyzed the influence of timing and clinical severity on the diagnostic value of class-specific COVID-19 serology testing. Cross-sectional analysis revealed higher sensitivity and specificity at lower optical density cutoffs for IgA in hospitalized patients than for IgG and IgM serology (IgG area under the curve [AUC] of 0.91 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.89 to 0.93] versus IgA AUC of 0.97 [95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98] versus IgM AUC of 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97]). The enhanced performance of IgA serology was apparent in the first 2 weeks after symptom onset and the first week after PCR testing. In patients requiring intubation, all three tests exhibit enhanced sensitivity. Among PCR-negative patients under investigation for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2 out of 61 showed clear evidence of seroconversion IgG, IgA, and IgM. Suspected false-positive results in the latter population were most frequently observed in IgG and IgM serology tests. Our findings suggest the potential utility of IgA serology in the acute setting and explore the benefits and limitations of class-specific serology as a complementary diagnostic tool to PCR for COVID-19 in the acute setting.

Evaluation of the practicability of a finger-stick whole-blood SARS-Cov-2 self-test adapted for the general population

Background

COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019) is an infectious respiratory disease caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. Point of Care (POC) tests have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. They need to be easily usable by the general population in order to alleviate the lockdown that many countries have initiated in response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic. A real-life study has been conducted in order to evaluate the performance of the COVID-PRESTO^® POC test and the results were recently published. Even if this test showed very high sensitivity and specificity in a laboratory setting when used by trained professionals, it needs to be further evaluated for practicability when used by the general public in order to be approved by health authorities for in-home use.

Methods

143 participants were recruited between March 2020 and April 2020 among non-medical populations in central France (nuclear plant workers, individuals attending the Orleans University Hospital vaccination clinic and Orleans University Hospital non-medical staff). Instructions for use, with or without a tutorial video, were made available to the volunteers. Two separate objectives were pursued: evaluation of the capability of participants to obtain an interpretable result, and evaluation of the users’ ability to read the results.

Results

88.4% of the test users judged the instructions for use leaflet to be clear and understandable. 99.3% of the users obtained a valid result and, according to the supervisors, 92.7% of the tests were properly performed by the users. Overall, 95% of the users gave positive feedback on the COVID PRESTO^® as a potential self-test. Neither age nor education had an influence.

Conclusion

COVID-PRESTO^® was successfully used by an overwhelming majority of participants and its use was judged very satisfactory, therefore showing promising potential as a self-test to be used by the general population. This POC test can become an easy-to-use tool to help detect whether individuals are protected or not, particularly in the context of a second wave or a mass vaccination program.

COVID-19: Characteristics and Therapeutics

Novel coronavirus (COVID-19 or 2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2), which suddenly emerged in December 2019 is still haunting the entire human race and has affected not only the healthcare system but also the global socioeconomic balances. COVID-19 was quickly designated as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization as there have been about 98.0 million confirmed cases and about 2.0 million confirmed deaths, as of January 2021. Although, our understanding of COVID-19 has significantly increased since its outbreak, and multiple treatment approaches and pharmacological interventions have been tested or are currently under development to mitigate its risk-factors. Recently, some vaccine candidates showed around 95% clinical efficacy, and now receiving emergency use approvals in different countries. US FDA recently approved BNT162 and mRNA-1273 vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna Inc. for emergency use and vaccination in the USA. In this review, we present a succinct overview of the SARS-CoV-2 virus structure, molecular mechanisms of infection, COVID-19 epidemiology, diagnosis, and clinical manifestations. We also systematize different treatment strategies and clinical trials initiated after the pandemic outbreak, based on viral infection and replication mechanisms. Additionally, we reviewed the novel pharmacological intervention approaches and vaccine development strategies against COVID-19. We speculate that the current pandemic emergency will trigger detailed studies of coronaviruses, their mechanism of infection, development of systematic drug repurposing approaches, and novel drug discoveries for current and future pandemic outbreaks.

Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies

Introduction

We evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antibody point-of-care tests (POCTs) (Abbott Panbio COVID-19 IgG/IgM and Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody tests) and compared the results to their respective chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott Architect IgM, Architect IgG, Roche Cobas total antibody assays).

Method

200 pre-pandemic sera and 48 samples positive for various conditions (18 viral hepatitis, 18 dengue, 11 ANA and 1 dsDNA) were used as controls and to assess for cross-reactivity. Anonymised residual leftover sera positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR were recruited as cases (n ​= ​133). The sensitivity/specificity/cross-reactivity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of the POCTs were assessed. Concordance between the POCTs and chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) were analysed.

Results

Abbott/Roche POCT specificity was 98.7%/100% (95% CI 96.5–99.8/98.5–100) and sensitivity was 97.2%/97.2% (95% CI 85.5–99.9/85.5–99.9) in cases ≥14 days post-first positive RT-PCR (POS), PPV was 68.7%/100% (95% CI 41.3–87.2/94.7–100.0), and NPV was 97.4%/97.6% (95% CI 97.0–97.8/97.2–98.0). In cases ≥14 days POS, concordance of Abbott/Roche POCT and CLIAs was 97.2%/100% (35/36 and 36/36 results). The sensitivity of individual IgM-band results on both POCTs did not increase >95% even after 14 days POS (Abbott 2.78%, Roche 44.4%).

Conclusion

Both POCTs have good specificity, little cross-reactivity with other antibodies, and sensitivity >95% when used in subjects ≥14 days POS. Analysis of individual POCT IgG/IgM-bands did not provide any additional information. POCTs can substitute for CLIAs in cases ≥14 days POS. In low prevalence areas, POCTs would be especially useful when combined with antigen testing in an orthogonal format to increase the PPV of COVID-19 results.

•

The POCT IgM-band is negative in most cases of COVID-19.

•

There is little utility in examining the IgG-IgM bands individually.

•

Like CLIAs, the sensitivity of the POCTs is >95% 14 days after RT-PCR positivity.

•

Combining POCTs with another test orthogonally improves the PPV.