Rapid Determination of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a bedside, point-of-Care, serological test

Recent progress on rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 by point-of-care testing platforms

The outbreak of COVID-19 has drawn great attention around the world. SARS-CoV-2 is a highly infectious virus with occult transmission by many mutations and a long incubation period. In particular, the emergence of asymptomatic infections has made the epidemic even more severe. Therefore, early diagnosis and timely management of suspected cases are essential measures to control the spread of the virus. Developing simple, portable, and accurate diagnostic techniques for SARS-CoV-2 is the key to epidemic prevention. The advantages of point-of-care testing technology make it play an increasingly important role in viral detection and screening. This review summarizes the point-of-care testing platforms developed by nucleic acid detection, immunological detection, and nanomaterial-based biosensors detection. Furthermore, this paper provides a prospect for designing future highly accurate, cheap, and convenient SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic technology.

Advanced Plasmonic Nanoparticle-Based Techniques for the Prevention, Detection, and Treatment of Current COVID-19

Coronavirus is an ongoing global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus disease 2019 known as COVID-19 is the worst pandemic since World War II. The outbreak of COVID-19 had a significant repercussion on the health, economy, politics, and environment, making coronavirus-related issues more complicated and becoming one of the most challenging pandemics of the last century with deadly outcomes and a high rate of the reproduction number. There are thousands of different types - or variants - of COVID circulating across the world. Viruses mutate all the time; it emphasizes the critical need for the designing of efficient vaccines to prevent virus infection, early and fast diagnosis, and effective antiviral and protective therapeutics. In this regard, the use of nanotechnology offers new opportunities for the development of novel strategies in terms of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19. This review presents an outline of the platforms developed using plasmonic nanoparticles in the detection, treatment, and prevention of SARS-CoV-2. We select the best strategies in each of these approaches. The properties of metallic plasmon NPs and their relevance in the development of novel point-of-care diagnosis approaches for COVID-19 are highlighted. Also, we discuss the current challenges and the future perspectives looking towards the clinical translation and the commercial aspects of nanotechnology and plasmonic NP-based diagnostic tools and therapy to fight COVID-19 pandemic. The article could be of significance for researchers dedicated to developing suitable plasmonic detection tools and therapy approaches for COVID-19 viruses and future pandemics.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

High seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers 8 months after the first wave in Aden, Yemen

The true burden of COVID-19 in Yemen is underestimated. The healthcare system is dysfunctional and there is a high shortage of health care workers in the country. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 remains limited and official surveillance data is restricted to those who are severe or highly suspected. In this study, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) aimed to conduct serological screening using rapid tests for asymptomatic staff at the MSF Aden Trauma Center to determine the SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity. Four months after the peak of the first wave, we offered all the staff at the MSF Aden Trauma Center PCR if symptomatic, and a baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology screening followed by follow-up screenings. A final round was scheduled four months after the baseline. A rapid serology lateral flow test, NG-Test IgM-IgG was used in all rounds and in the final round, an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors for seropositivity. The level of agreement between the different serology assays used was investigated. Overall 69 out of 356 participants (19.4%, 95% CI 17.9-20.8) tested positive by NG-Test between September and November 2020. A sub-sample of 161 staff members were retested in January 2021. Of these, the NG-Test detected only 13 positive cases, whereas the ECLIA detected 109 positive cases. The adjusted seroprevalence by ECLIA was 59% (95%CI 52.2-65.9). The non-medical staff had significantly lower odds of seropositivity compared to the medical staff (AOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15-0.7, p<0.001). The positive percent agreement between the two tests was very low (11%). Our results suggest a very high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers in Yemen, highlighting the need for regular testing and rapid vaccination of all healthcare workers in the country.

Nanodiagnostics to Face SARS-CoV-2 and Future Pandemics: From an Idea to the Market and Beyond

The COVID-19 pandemic made clear how our society requires quickly available tools to address emerging healthcare issues. Diagnostic assays and devices are used every day to screen for COVID-19 positive patients, with the aim to decide the appropriate treatment and containment measures. In this context, we would have expected to see the use of the most recent diagnostic technologies worldwide, including the advanced ones such as nano-biosensors capable to provide faster, more sensitive, cheaper, and high-throughput results than the standard polymerase chain reaction and lateral flow assays. Here we discuss why that has not been the case and why all the exciting diagnostic strategies published on a daily basis in peer-reviewed journals are not yet successful in reaching the market and being implemented in the clinical practice.

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.

Development and Efficacy of Lateral Flow Point-of-Care Testing Devices for Rapid and Mass COVID-19 Diagnosis by the Detections of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

The COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2020-2021. COVID-19 is becoming one of the most fatal pandemics in history and brings a huge challenge to the global healthcare system. Opportune detection, confinement, and early treatment of infected cases present the first step in combating COVID-19. Diagnosis via viral nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) is frequently employed and considered the standard procedure. However, with an increasing urge for point-of-care tests, rapid and cheaper immunoassays are widely utilized, such as lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), which can be used for rapid, early, and large-scale detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this narrative review, the principle and technique of LFIA applied in COVID-19 antigen and antibody detection are introduced. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the commercial LFIA tests are outlined and compared. Generally, LFIA antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 are less sensitive than viral NAATs, the "gold standard" for clinical COVID-19 diagnosis. However, antigen tests can be used for rapid and mass testing in high-risk congregate housing to quickly identify people with COVID-19, implementing infection prevention and control measures, thus preventing transmission. LFIA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, IgM and/or IgG, known as serology tests, are used for identification if a person has previously been exposed to the virus or vaccine immunization. Notably, advanced techniques, such as LFT-based CRISPR-Cas9 and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS), have added new dimensions to the COVID-19 diagnosis and are also discussed in this review.

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

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

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

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

Four-Month Clinical Status of a Cohort of Patients After Hospitalization for COVID-19

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the consequences at 4 months in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In a prospective uncontrolled cohort study, survivors of COVID-19 who had been hospitalized in a university hospital in France between March 1 and May 29, 2020, underwent a telephone assessment 4 months after discharge, between July 15 and September 18, 2020. Patients with relevant symptoms and all patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit (ICU) were invited for further assessment at an ambulatory care visit.

EXPOSURES

Survival of hospitalization for COVID-19.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Respiratory, cognitive, and functional symptoms were assessed by telephone with the Q3PC cognitive screening questionnaire and a checklist of symptoms. At the ambulatory care visit, patients underwent pulmonary function tests, lung computed tomographic scan, psychometric and cognitive tests (including the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), and, for patients who had been hospitalized in the ICU or reported ongoing symptoms, echocardiography.

RESULTS

Among 834 eligible patients, 478 were evaluated by telephone (mean age, 61 years [SD, 16 years]; 201 men, 277 women). During the telephone interview, 244 patients (51%) declared at least 1 symptom that did not exist before COVID-19: fatigue in 31%, cognitive symptoms in 21%, and new-onset dyspnea in 16%. There was further evaluation in 177 patients (37%), including 97 of 142 former ICU patients. The median 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory score (n = 130) was 4.5 (interquartile range, 3.0-5.0) for reduced motivation and 3.7 (interquartile range, 3.0-4.5) for mental fatigue (possible range, 1 [best] to 5 [worst]). The median 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score (n = 145) was 25 (interquartile range, 25.0-75.0) for the subscale "role limited owing to physical problems" (possible range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]). Computed tomographic lung-scan abnormalities were found in 108 of 171 patients (63%), mainly subtle ground-glass opacities. Fibrotic lesions were observed in 33 of 171 patients (19%), involving less than 25% of parenchyma in all but 1 patient. Fibrotic lesions were observed in 19 of 49 survivors (39%) with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among 94 former ICU patients, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic symptoms were observed in 23%, 18%, and 7%, respectively. The left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 50% in 8 of 83 ICU patients (10%). New-onset chronic kidney disease was observed in 2 ICU patients. Serology was positive in 172 of 177 outpatients (97%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Four months after hospitalization for COVID-19, a cohort of patients frequently reported symptoms not previously present, and lung-scan abnormalities were common among those who were tested. These findings are limited by the absence of a control group and of pre-COVID assessments in this cohort. Further research is needed to understand longer-term outcomes and whether these findings reflect associations with the disease.

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

Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) methodology. Two hundred fifty serum samples from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected 0 to 32 days after the onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control serum samples (n = 254) were retrieved from pre-coronavirus disease (COVID) periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (n  = 11), positivity for rheumatoid factors (n  = 3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (n  = 9), malaria (n = 5), or no documented viral infection (n  = 226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) from 10 manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with the specificities ranging from 75.7% to 99.2%. The sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection after the onset of symptoms, from 31.7% to 55.4% (days 0 to 9), 65.9% to 92.9% (days 10 to 14), and 81.0% to 95.2% (>14 days). Only three of the tests evaluated met French health authorities' thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity and ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances varied greatly between tests, with only one-third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowledge of the analytical performances of these tests will allow clinicians and, most importantly, laboratorians to use them with more confidence; could help determine the general population's immunological status; and may help diagnose some patients with false-negative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) results.

A lateral flow immunoassay test performance in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys: a validation study among healthcare workers

The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of NG-Test® when used as a finger-prick test on healthcare workers and to compare it to the ELISA Wantai Immunoassay. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positive and 59 who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 negative accepted to participate in this study. They were subjected to an NG-Test® finger-prick test and collection of a blood sample on the same day. A second NG-Test® on another finger was performed for the first 30 cases and controls and read blinded to the first. Sera obtained from blood samples were used to perform the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 ELISA. The interobserver agreement for the NG-Test® test was perfect (kappa coefficient = 100% [98%-100%]). The sensitivity of NG-Test® was estimated to be 85% [71.9%-92.3%] and the specificity 98.3% [95.0%-100.0%]) for both IgG and IgM. The percentage of agreement between the Wantai immunoassay and NG-Test® was 92.73% for IgG (Kappa = 0.85 [0.75-0.95]) and 65.45% (Kappa = 0.42 [0.26-0.58]) for IgM. Our study highlights the need to validate rapid immunoassay tests under real-life conditions. If NG-Test® is used in seroprevalence surveys, we recommend that its diagnostic performance be taken into consideration to obtain a reliable estimation.