Ultrasensitive assay for saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection

Large-scale phenotyping of patients with long COVID post-hospitalization reveals mechanistic subtypes of disease

One in ten severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections result in prolonged symptoms termed long coronavirus disease (COVID), yet disease phenotypes and mechanisms are poorly understood1. Here we profiled 368 plasma proteins in 657 participants ≥3 months following hospitalization. Of these, 426 had at least one long COVID symptom and 233 had fully recovered. Elevated markers of myeloid inflammation and complement activation were associated with long COVID. IL-1R2, MATN2 and COLEC12 were associated with cardiorespiratory symptoms, fatigue and anxiety/depression; MATN2, CSF3 and C1QA were elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms and C1QA was elevated in cognitive impairment. Additional markers of alterations in nerve tissue repair (SPON-1 and NFASC) were elevated in those with cognitive impairment and SCG3, suggestive of brain-gut axis disturbance, was elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) was persistently elevated in some individuals with long COVID, but virus was not detected in sputum. Analysis of inflammatory markers in nasal fluids showed no association with symptoms. Our study aimed to understand inflammatory processes that underlie long COVID and was not designed for biomarker discovery. Our findings suggest that specific inflammatory pathways related to tissue damage are implicated in subtypes of long COVID, which might be targeted in future therapeutic trials.

Saliva as Biomarker for Oral and Chronic Degenerative Non-Communicable Diseases

Saliva is a very complex fluid and it is essential to maintain several physiological processes and functions, including oral health, taste, digestion and immunological defenses. Saliva composition and the oral microbiome can be influenced by several factors, like diet and smoking habits, and their alteration can represent an important access point for pathogens and, thus, for systemic illness onset. In this review, we explore the potentiality of saliva as a new tool for the early detection of some pathological conditions, such as oral diseases, chronic degenerative non-communicable diseases, among these chronic kidney disease (CKD). We also examined the possible correlation between oral and systemic diseases and oral and gut microbiota dysbiosis. In particular, we deeply analyzed the relationship between oral diseases and CKD. In this context, some salivary parameters can represent a new device to detect either oral or systemic pathologies. Moreover, the positive modulation of oral and gut microbiota induced by prebiotics, postbiotics, or symbiotics could represent a new possible adjuvant therapy in the clinical management of oral diseases and CKD.

Antigen concentration, viral load, and test performance for SARS-CoV-2 in multiple specimen types

The relationship between N-antigen concentration and viral load within and across different specimens guides the clinical performance of rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) in different uses. A prospective study was conducted in Porto Velho, Brazil, to investigate RDT performance in different specimen types as a function of the correlation between antigen concentration and viral load. The study included 214 close contacts with recent exposures to confirmed cases, aged 12 years and older and with various levels of vaccination. Antigen concentration was measured in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), anterior nares swab (ANS), and saliva specimens. Reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR was conducted on the NPS and saliva specimens, and two RDTs were conducted on ANS and one RDT on saliva. Antigen concentration correlated well with viral load when measured in the same specimen type but not across specimen types. Antigen levels were higher in symptomatic cases compared to asymptomatic/oligosymptomatic cases and lower in saliva compared to NPS and ANS samples. Discordant results between the RDTs conducted on ANS and the RT-PCR on NPS were resolved by antigen concentration values. The analytical limit-of-detection of RDTs can be used to predict the performance of the tests in populations for which the antigen concentration is known. The antigen dynamics across different sample types observed in SARS-CoV-2 disease progression support use of RDTs with nasal samples. Given lower antigen concentrations in saliva, rapid testing using saliva is expected to require improved RDT analytical sensitivity to achieve clinical sensitivity similar to rapid testing of nasal samples.

Two electrochemiluminescence immunosensors for the sensitive and quantitative detection of the CP4-EPSPS protein in genetically modified crops

Two different models of electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunosensors for the sensitive and quantitative detection of the CP4-EPSPS protein in genetically modified (GM) crops were proposed in this study. One was a signal-reduced ECL immunosensor based on nitrogen-doped graphene, graphitic carbon nitride and polyamide-amine (GN-PAMAM-g-C₃N₄) composites as the electrochemically active substance. The other model was a signal-enhanced ECL immunosensor based on a GN-PAMAM modified electrode for the detection of CdSe/ZnS quantum dots (QDs)-labeled antigens. The ECL signal responses of the reduced and enhanced immunosensors linearly decreased as the increase of the soybean RRS and RRS-QDs content in the range of 0.05% to 1.5% and 0.025% to 1.0%, with the limits of detection of 0.03% and 0.01% (S/N = 3), respectively. Both of the ECL immunosensors showed good specificity, stability, accuracy, and reproducibility in the analysis of real samples. The results indicate that the two immunosensors provide an ultra-sensitive and quantitative approach for the determination of the CP4-EPSPS protein. Due to their outstanding performances, the two ECL immunosensors could be useful tools for achieving the effective regulation of GM crops.

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine celebrates 60 years – narrative review devoted to the contribution of the journal to the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2

This review is an integral part of the special issue for the 60 years of the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM). The aim of the review is to highlight the role of the clinical laboratory since the emergence of the “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2), which causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with special focus on the contribution of the journal in generating knowledge in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. As of October 30, 2022, a total of 186 CCLM publications were dedicated to COVID-19. Of importance, major International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) guidelines related to the diagnosis of COVID-19 were published in CCLM. Between early-2020 and late October 2022, COVID-19 publications represented around 27% of all articles in CCLM, highlighting the willingness of the editorial board to help the field in order to better describe and diagnose this new emerging disease. First launched in 1963 under the name “Zeitschrift für Klinische Chemie”, the Journal was entirely devoted to clinical chemistry in the strict sense. The various topics published in relation to COVID-19 including its diagnosis, its impact on biochemical or hematological measures, as well as biosafety measures, is the perfect example that shows that the journal has greatly diversified over time.

Measurement of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antigens in Plasma of Pediatric Patients With Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Using an Ultrasensitive and Quantitative Immunoassay

BACKGROUND

Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigens in blood has high sensitivity in adults with acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but sensitivity in pediatric patients is unclear. Recent data suggest that persistent SARS-CoV-2 spike antigenemia may contribute to multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). We quantified SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) antigens in blood of pediatric patients with either acute COVID-19 or MIS-C using ultrasensitive immunoassays (Meso Scale Discovery).

METHODS

Plasma was collected from inpatients (<21 years) enrolled across 15 hospitals in 15 US states. Acute COVID-19 patients (n = 36) had a range of disease severity and positive nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR within 24 hours of blood collection. Patients with MIS-C (n = 53) met CDC criteria and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (RT-PCR or serology). Controls were patients pre-COVID-19 (n = 67) or within 24 hours of negative RT-PCR (n = 43).

RESULTS

Specificities of N and S assays were 95-97% and 100%, respectively. In acute COVID-19 patients, N/S plasma assays had 89%/64% sensitivity; sensitivities in patients with concurrent nasopharyngeal swab cycle threshold (Ct) ≤35 were 93%/63%. Antigen concentrations ranged from 1.28-3844 pg/mL (N) and 1.65-1071 pg/mL (S) and correlated with disease severity. In MIS-C, antigens were detected in 3/53 (5.7%) samples (3 N-positive: 1.7, 1.9, 121.1 pg/mL; 1 S-positive: 2.3 pg/mL); the patient with highest N had positive nasopharyngeal RT-PCR (Ct 22.3) concurrent with blood draw.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasensitive blood SARS-CoV-2 antigen measurement has high diagnostic yield in children with acute COVID-19. Antigens were undetectable in most MIS-C patients, suggesting that persistent antigenemia is not a common contributor to MIS-C pathogenesis.

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.

Advances in diagnostic tools for respiratory tract infections. From tuberculosis to COVID19: changing paradigms?

Respiratory tract infections (RTI) are one of the commonest reasons for seeking healthcare, but are amongst the most challenging diseases in terms of clinical decision making. Proper and timely diagnosis is critical in order to optimize management and prevent further emergence of antimicrobial resistance by misuse, or overuse of antibiotics. Diagnostic tools for RTI include those involving syndromic and etiological diagnosis: from clinical and radiological features to laboratory methods targeting both pathogen detection and host biomarkers, as well as their combinations in terms of clinical algorithms. They also include tools for predicting severity and monitoring treatment response. Unprecedented milestones have been achieved in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, involving the most recent applications of diagnostic technologies both at genotypic and phenotypic level, which have changed paradigms in infectious respiratory diseases in terms of why, how and where diagnostics are performed. The aim of this review is to discuss advances in diagnostic tools that impact clinical decision making, surveillance and follow-up of RTI and tuberculosis. If properly harnessed, recent advances in diagnostic technologies, including omics and digital transformation emerge as an unprecedented opportunity to tackle ongoing and future epidemics while handling antimicrobial resistance from a One Health perspective.