Evaluation of three immunochromatographic tests for rapid detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

Recent Advances in Quantum Dot-Based Lateral Flow Immunoassays for the Rapid, Point-of-Care Diagnosis of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred demand for efficient and rapid diagnostic tools that can be deployed at point of care to quickly identify infected individuals. Existing detection methods are time consuming and they lack sensitivity. Point-of-care testing (POCT) has emerged as a promising alternative due to its user-friendliness, rapidity, and high specificity and sensitivity. Such tests can be conveniently conducted at the patient's bedside. Immunodiagnostic methods that offer the rapid identification of positive cases are urgently required. Quantum dots (QDs), known for their multimodal properties, have shown potential in terms of combating or inhibiting the COVID-19 virus. When coupled with specific antibodies, QDs enable the highly sensitive detection of viral antigens in patient samples. Conventional lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) have been widely used for diagnostic testing due to their simplicity, low cost, and portability. However, they often lack the sensitivity required to accurately detect low viral loads. Quantum dot (QD)-based lateral flow immunoassays have emerged as a promising alternative, offering significant advancements in sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) method, which fulfils POCT standards, has gained popularity in diagnosing COVID-19. This review focuses on recent advancements in QD-based LFIA for rapid POCT COVID-19 diagnosis. Strategies to enhance sensitivity using QDs are explored, and the underlying principles of LFIA are elucidated. The benefits of using the QD-based LFIA as a POCT method are highlighted, and its published performance in COVID-19 diagnostics is examined. Overall, the integration of quantum dots with LFIA holds immense promise in terms of revolutionizing COVID-19 detection, treatment, and prevention, offering a convenient and effective approach to combat the pandemic.

Diagnostics and analysis of SARS-CoV-2: current status, recent advances, challenges and perspectives

The disastrous spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has induced severe public healthcare issues and weakened the global economy significantly. Although SARS-CoV-2 infection is not as fatal as the initial outbreak, many infected victims suffer from long COVID. Therefore, rapid and large-scale testing is critical in managing patients and alleviating its transmission. Herein, we review the recent advances in techniques to detect SARS-CoV-2. The sensing principles are detailed together with their application domains and analytical performances. In addition, the advantages and limits of each method are discussed and analyzed. Besides molecular diagnostics and antigen and antibody tests, we also review neutralizing antibodies and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Further, the characteristics of the mutational locations in the different variants with epidemiological features are summarized. Finally, the challenges and possible strategies are prospected to develop new assays to meet different diagnostic needs. Thus, this comprehensive and systematic review of SARS-CoV-2 detection technologies may provide insightful guidance and direction for developing tools for the diagnosis and analysis of SARS-CoV-2 to support public healthcare and effective long-term pandemic management and control.

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.

Microfluidics-Based Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) Devices in Dealing with Waves of COVID-19 Pandemic: The Emerging Solution

Recent advances in microfluidics-based point-of-care testing (POCT) technology such as paper, array, and beads have shown promising results for diagnosing various infectious diseases. The fast and timely detection of viral infection has proven to be a critical step for deciding the therapeutic outcome in the current COVID-19 pandemic, which in turn not only enhances the patient survival rate but also reduces the disease-associated comorbidities. In the present scenario, rapid, noninvasive detection of the virus using low cost and high throughput microfluidics-based POCT devices embraces the advantages over existing diagnostic technologies, for which a centralized lab facility, expensive instruments, sample pretreatment, and skilled personnel are required. Microfluidic-based multiplexed POCT devices can be a boon for clinical diagnosis in developing countries that lacks a centralized health care system and resources. The microfluidic devices can be used for disease diagnosis and exploited for the development and testing of drug efficacy for disease treatment in model systems. The havoc created by the second wave of COVID-19 led several countries' governments to the back front. The lack of diagnostic kits, medical devices, and human resources created a huge demand for a technology that can be remotely operated with single touch and data that can be analyzed on a phone. Recent advancements in information technology and the use of smartphones led to a paradigm shift in the development of diagnostic devices, which can be explored to deal with the current pandemic situation. This review sheds light on various approaches for the development of cost-effective microfluidics POCT devices. The successfully used microfluidic devices for COVID-19 detection under clinical settings along with their pros and cons have been discussed here. Further, the integration of microfluidic devices with smartphones and wireless network systems using the Internet-of-things will enable readers for manufacturing advanced POCT devices for remote disease management in low resource settings.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF SARS-COV-2 IGM AND IGG TESTS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH COVID-19

Introduction

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid test and optimal time for seropositivity according to the onset of symptoms

Point-of-care serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been used for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, their accuracy over time regarding the onset of symptoms is not fully understood. We aimed to assess the accuracy of a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay (LFI). Subjects, aged over 18 years, presenting clinical symptoms suggestive of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested once by both nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal RT-PCR and LFI. The accuracy of LFI was assessed in periodic intervals of three days in relation to the onset of symptoms. The optimal cut-off point was defined as the number of days required to achieve the best sensitivity and specificity. This cut-off point was also used to compare LFI accuracy according to participants’ status: outpatient or hospitalized. In total, 959 patients were included, 379 (39.52%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR, and 272 (28.36%) tested positive with LFI. LFI best performance was achieved after 10 days of the onset of symptoms, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.9% (95%CI: 79.8-89.1) and 94.4% (95%CI: 91.0-96.8), respectively. Although the specificity was similar (94.6% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.051), the sensitivity was higher in hospitalized patients than in outpatients (91.7% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.032) after 10 days of the onset of symptoms. Best sensitivity of point-of-care LFI was found 10 days after the onset of symptoms which may limit its use in acute care. Specificity remained high regardless of the number of days since the onset of symptoms.

Characteristics of patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and repeatedly negative RT-PCR

Objectives

Challenges remain and there are still a sufficient number of cases with epidemiological, clinical features and radiological data suggestive of COVID-19 pneumonia that persist negative in their RT-PCR results. The aim of the study was to define the distinguishing characteristics between patients developing a serological response to SARS-CoV-2 and those who did not.

Methods

RT-PCR tests used were TaqPath 2019-nCoV Assay Kit v1 (ORF-1ab, N and S genes) from Thermo Fisher Diagnostics and SARS-COV-2 Kit (N and E genes) from Vircell. Serological response was tested using the rapid SARS-CoV2 IgG/IgM Test Cassette from T and D Diagnostics Canada and CMC Medical Devices and Drugs, S.L, CE.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, we included a cohort of 52 patients recruited from 31 March 2020 to 23 April 2020. Patients with positive serology had an older average age (73.29) compared to those who were negative (54.82) (P<0.05). Sat0₂ in 27 of 34 patients with positive serology were below 94% (P<0.05). There was a frequency of 1.5% negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs during the study period concurring with 36.7% of positivity.

Conclusion

Clinical features and other biomarkers in a context of a positive serology can be considered crucial for diagnosis.

Validity and reliability of immunochromatographic IgM/IgG rapid tests for COVID-19 salivary diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of three immunochromatographic rapid tests for salivary detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigens and the reliability of these tests comparing saliva with plasma samples.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plasma and saliva samples from 62 patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 20 healthy volunteers were assayed. IgM/IgG antibody against SARS-COV-2 was detected using three immunochromatographic rapid tests and compared with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR).

RESULTS

The tests' overall accuracy for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ranged from 75.6 to 79.3 for saliva and 86.6-87.8 for plasma tests. The sensitivity of saliva and plasma tests increased with the severity of COVID-19 signs and symptoms. The chance of a positive plasma test in participants with a positive qRT-PCR test was 2.27 greater than a positive saliva test.

CONCLUSIONS

Although rapid immunochromatographic tests are more accurate using plasma than saliva, which was expected considering its original use, our findings support the use of saliva as a straightforward supplementary method to assess seroconversion in patients with COVID-19, with important sensitivity and sensibility, especially in severe and critical cases.

Comparative Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Immunochromatographic Test Assays with Chemiluminescent Immunoassay for the Diagnosis of COVID-19

Background To date, the molecular assay is the gold-standard method for COVID-19 diagnosis. However, they are expensive and complex. There is a pressing necessity for developing other effective diagnostics for SARS‐CoV‐2 patients. Therefore, serological detection of antibodies against SARS‐CoV‐2 might provide a good alternative. Aim We aimed to compare and evaluate seven rapid diagnostic tests with Mindray chemiluminescent automated immunoassay as a reference method for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection. Methods: This study included the serum of a total of 49 attendees to the Reference Laboratory of Egyptian university hospitals during the period from April 2021 to May 2021. Anti-Covid-19 antibodies detection in serum samples was performed by Mindray fully automated system as our reference method and seven rapid antibody tests; Wondfo, Vazyme, Dynamiker, Panbio, Artron Maccura and Roche. Results: The chemiluminescent assay revealed 30 (61.2%) positive samples and 19 (38.8%) negative samples for COVID-19 IgG. For COVID-19 IgM, 11 (22.4%) samples were positive and 38 (77.6%) samples were negative. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were not detected in any of the PCR negative individuals. The best diagnostic performance was demonstrated by Roche IgG and IgM, and Vazyme IgG and IgM antibody tests followed by Panbio. For Roche, the sensitivity and specificity for IgG and IgM were (83.3%, 89.5%) and (72.7%, 81.6%) respectively. Vazyme showed sensitivity and specificity for IgG and IgM were (77.8%, 85.7%) and (75%, 91.7%) respectively. Regards Panbio, the sensitivity and specificity for IgG and IgM were (63.6%, 87.5%) and (50%, 86.7%) respectively. Cohen’s Kappa values revealed a substantial agreement for Roche IgG, Vazyme IgG and IgM of (0.7076, 0.6250, 0.6667) respectively. The worst agreement was reported for Maccura IgG, Wondfo, and Dynamiker IgM with Cohen’s Kappa values of (0.2508, 0.1893, 0.0313) respectively. Conclusions: Rapid tests in our study exhibited heterogeneous diagnostic performances. Roche, Vazyme, and Panbio antibody tests showed promising results in concordance with our reference method with the best-reported results. On the other hand, the other tests were inferior and failed in providing valid and reliable results. Further studies are necessary to determine the practicality of these tests in different settings and communities.

Development of an Immunochromatographic Strip Using Conjugated Gold Nanoparticles for the Rapid Detection of Klebsiella pneumoniae Causing Neonatal Sepsis

Neonatal sepsis is a leading cause of death among newborns and infants, especially in the developing world. The problem is compounded by the delays in pinpointing the causative agent of the infection. This is reflected in increasing mortality associated with these cases and the spread of multi-drug-resistant bacteria. In this work, we deployed bioinformatics and proteomics analyses to determine a promising target that could be used for the identification of a major neonatal sepsis causative agent, Klebsiella pneumoniae. A 19 amino acid peptide from a hypothetical outer membrane was found to be very specific to the species, well conserved among its strains, surface exposed, and expressed in conditions simulating infection. Antibodies against the selected peptide were conjugated to gold nanoparticles and incorporated into an immunochromatographic strip. The developed strip was able to detect as low as 10⁵ CFU/mL of K. pneumoniae. Regarding specificity, it showed negative results with both Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae. More importantly, in a pilot study using neonatal sepsis cases blood specimens, the developed strip selectively gave positive results within 20 min with those infected with K. pneumoniae without prior sample processing. However, it gave negative results in cases infected with other bacterial species.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 total antibody detection via a lateral flow nanoparticle fluorescence immunoassay

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) endgame may benefit from simple, accurate antibody testing to characterize seroprevalence and immunization coverage.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of the lateral flow QIAreach anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total rapid nanoparticle fluorescence immunoassay compared to reference isotype-specific IgG, IgM, and IgA SARS-CoV-2 ELISA using S1 or receptor binding domain (RBD) as antigens.

STUDY DESIGN

A diagnostic comparison study was carried out using 154 well-characterized heparin plasma samples. Agreement between assays was assessed by overall, positive, and negative percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient.

RESULTS

Overall agreement between the QIAreach anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total and any anti-spike domain (S1 or RBD) antibody isotype was 96.0 % (95 % CI 89.8-98.8), the positive percent agreement was 97.6 % (95 % CI 91.0-99.9), the negative percent agreement was 88.2 % (95 % CI 64.4-98.0). The kappa coefficient was 0.86 (95 % CI 0.72 to 0.99).

CONCLUSION

The QIAreach anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total rapid antibody test provides comparable performance to high-complexity, laboratory-based ELISA.

Point-of-care testing detection methods for COVID-19

COVID-19 is an acute respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which has high transmissibility. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can develop symptoms including cough, fever, pneumonia and other complications, which in severe cases could lead to death. In addition, a proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be asymptomatic. At present, the primary diagnostic method for COVID-19 is reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which tests patient samples including nasopharyngeal swabs, sputum and other lower respiratory tract secretions. Other detection methods, e.g., isothermal nucleic acid amplification, CRISPR, immunochromatography, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and electrochemical sensors are also in use. As the current testing methods are mostly performed at central hospitals and third-party testing centres, the testing systems used mostly employ large, high-throughput, automated equipment. Given the current situation of the epidemic, point-of-care testing (POCT) is advantageous in terms of its ease of use, greater approachability on the user's end, more timely detection, and comparable accuracy and sensitivity, which could reduce the testing load on central hospitals. POCT is thus conducive to daily epidemic control and achieving early detection and treatment. This paper summarises the latest research advances in POCT-based SARS-CoV-2 detection methods, compares three categories of commercially available products, i.e., nucleic acid tests, immunoassays and novel sensors, and proposes the expectations for the development of POCT-based SARS-CoV-2 detection including greater accessibility, higher sensitivity and lower costs.

SERS Based Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Point-of-Care Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Samples

The current scenario, an ongoing pandemic of COVID-19, places a dreadful burden on the healthcare system worldwide. Subsequently, there is a need for a rapid, user-friendly, and inexpensive on-site monitoring system for diagnosis. The early and rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 plays an important role in combating the outbreak. Although conventional methods such as PCR, RT-PCR, and ELISA, etc., offer a gold-standard solution to manage the pandemic, they cannot be implemented as a point-of-care (POC) testing arrangement. Moreover, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) having a high enhancement factor provides quantitative results with high specificity, sensitivity, and multiplex detection ability but lacks in POC setup. In contrast, POC devices such as lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) offer rapid, simple-to-use, cost-effective, reliable platform. However, LFIA has limitations in quantitative and sensitive analyses of SARS-CoV-2 detection. To resolve these concerns, herein we discuss a unique modality that is an integration of SERS with LFIA for quantitative analyses of SARS-CoV-2. The miniaturization ability of SERS-based devices makes them promising in biosensor application and has the potential to make a better alternative of conventional diagnostic methods. This review also demonstrates the commercially available and FDA/ICMR approved LFIA kits for on-site diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

Large-scale IgM and IgG SARS-CoV-2 serological screening among healthcare workers with a low infection prevalence based on nasopharyngeal swab tests in an Italian university hospital: Perspectives for public health

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are highly exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection given their specific tasks. The IgG-IgM serological assay has demonstrated good accuracy in early detection in symptomatic patients, but its role in the diagnosis of asymptomatic patients is uncertain. The aim of our study was to assess IgM and IgG prevalence in sera in a large cohort of HCWs previously subjected to Nasopharyngeal swab test (NST) after accurate risk assessment due to positive COVID-19 patient exposure during an observation period of 90 days.

METHODS

2407 asymptomatic HCWs that had close contact with COVID-19 patients in the period between April 8th and June 7th were screened with NST based on the RT-PCR method. In parallel, they underwent large-scale chemiluminescence immunoassays involving IgM-IgG serological screening to determine actual viral spread in the same cohort.

RESULTS

During the 90-day observation period, 18 workers (0.75%) resulted positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection at the NST, whereas the positivity rates for IgM and IgG were 11.51% and 2.37%, respectively (277 workers). Despite high specificity, serological tests were inadequate for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with previous positive NST results (IgM and IgG sensitivities of 27.78% and 50.00%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate a widespread low viral load of SARS-CoV-2 among hospital workers. However, serological screening showed very low sensitivity with respect to NST in identifying infected workers, and negative IgG and IgM results should not exclude the diagnosis of COVID-19. IgG-IgM chemiluminescence immunoassays could increase the diagnosis of COVID-19 only in association with NST, and this association is considered helpful for decision-making regarding returning to work.

Accurate point-of-care serology tests for COVID-19

Background

As COVID-19 vaccines become available, screening individuals for prior COVID-19 infection and vaccine response in point-of-care (POC) settings has renewed interest. We prospectively screened at-risk individuals for SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid protein antibodies in a POC setting to determine if it was a feasible method to identify antibody from prior infection.

Methods

Three EUA-approved lateral flow antibody assays were performed on POC finger-stick blood and compared with serum and a CLIA nucleocapsid antibody immunoassay. Variables including antibody class, time since PCR, and the assay antigen used were evaluated.

Results

512 subjects enrolled, of which 104 had a COVID-19 history and positive PCR. Only three PCR-positive subjects required hospitalization, with one requiring mechanical ventilation. The POC results correlated well with the immunoassay (93–97% sensitivity) and using serum did not improve the sensitivity or specificity.

Conclusions

Finger-stick, POC COVID-19 antibody testing was highly effective in identifying antibody resulting from prior infections in mildly symptomatic subjects. Using high-complexity serum immunoassays did not improve the screening outcome. Almost all individuals with COVID-19 infection produced detectable antibodies to the virus. POC antibody testing is useful as a screen for prior COVID-19 infection, and should be useful in assessing vaccine response.

Suitability of two rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays for predicting SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing activity of sera

Assessment of commercial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoassays for their capacity to provide reliable information on sera neutralizing activity is an emerging need. We evaluated the performance of two commercially available lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIC; Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody test and the INNOVITA 2019-nCoV Ab test) in comparison with a SARS-CoV-2 neutralization pseudotyped assay for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis in hospitalized patients and investigate whether the intensity of the test band in LFIC associates with neutralizing antibody (NtAb) titers. Ninety sera were included from 51 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. A green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter-based pseudotyped neutralization assay (vesicular stomatitis virus coated with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) was used. Test line intensity was scored using a 4-level scale (0 to 3+). The overall sensitivity of LFIC assays was 91.1% for the Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody test, 72.2% for the INNOVITA 2019-nCoV IgG, 85.6% for the INNOVITA 2019-nCoV IgM, and 92.2% for the NtAb assay. Sensitivity increased for all assays in sera collected beyond day 14 after symptoms onset (93.9%, 79.6%, 93.9%, and 93.9%, respectively). Reactivities equal to or more intense than the positive control line (≥2+) in the Wondfo assay had a negative predictive value of 100% and a positive predictive value of 96.4% for high NtAb₅₀ titers (≥1/160). Our findings support the use of LFIC assays evaluated herein, particularly the Wondfo test, for COVID-19 diagnosis. We also find evidence that these rapid immunoassays can be used to predict high SARS-CoV-2-S NtAb₅₀ titers.