Highly Sensitive and Specific Multiplex Antibody Assays To Quantify Immunoglobulins M, A, and G against SARS-CoV-2 Antigens

Review of HIV Self Testing Technologies and Promising Approaches for the Next Generation

The ability to self-test for HIV is vital to preventing transmission, particularly when used in concert with HIV biomedical prevention modalities, such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). In this paper, we review recent developments in HIV self-testing and self-sampling methods, and the potential future impact of novel materials and methods that emerged through efforts to develop more effective point-of-care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. We address the gaps in existing HIV self-testing technologies, where improvements in test sensitivity, sample-to-answer time, simplicity, and cost are needed to enhance diagnostic accuracy and widespread accessibility. We discuss potential paths toward the next generation of HIV self-testing through sample collection materials, biosensing assay techniques, and miniaturized instrumentation. We discuss the implications for other applications, such as self-monitoring of HIV viral load and other infectious diseases.

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.

Overcoming the limitations of COVID-19 diagnostics with nanostructures, nucleic acid engineering, and additive manufacturing

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed fundamental limitations in the current model for infectious disease diagnosis and serology, based upon complex assay workflows, laboratory-based instrumentation, and expensive materials for managing samples and reagents. The lengthy time delays required to obtain test results, the high cost of gold-standard PCR tests, and poor sensitivity of rapid point-of-care tests contributed directly to society's inability to efficiently identify COVID-19-positive individuals for quarantine, which in turn continues to impact return to normal activities throughout the economy. Over the past year, enormous resources have been invested to develop more effective rapid tests and laboratory tests with greater throughput, yet the vast majority of engineering and chemistry approaches are merely incremental improvements to existing methods for nucleic acid amplification, lateral flow test strips, and enzymatic amplification assays for protein-based biomarkers. Meanwhile, widespread commercial availability of new test kits continues to be hampered by the cost and time required to develop single-use disposable microfluidic plastic cartridges manufactured by injection molding. Through development of novel technologies for sensitive, selective, rapid, and robust viral detection and more efficient approaches for scalable manufacturing of microfluidic devices, we can be much better prepared for future management of infectious pathogen outbreaks. Here, we describe how photonic metamaterials, graphene nanomaterials, designer DNA nanostructures, and polymers amenable to scalable additive manufacturing are being applied towards overcoming the fundamental limitations of currently dominant COVID-19 diagnostic approaches. In this paper, we review how several distinct classes of nanomaterials and nanochemistry enable simple assay workflows, high sensitivity, inexpensive instrumentation, point-of-care sample-to-answer virus diagnosis, and rapidly scaled manufacturing.

Wuhan to World: The COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 is a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel virus which belongs to the family Coronaviridae. It was first reported in December 2019 in the Wuhan city of China and soon after, the virus and hence the disease got spread to the entire world. As of February 26, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has infected ~112.20 million people and caused ~2.49 million deaths across the globe. Although the case fatality rate among SARS-CoV-2 patient is lower (~2.15%) than its earlier relatives, SARS-CoV (~9.5%) and MERS-CoV (~34.4%), the SARS-CoV-2 has been observed to be more infectious and caused higher morbidity and mortality worldwide. As of now, only the knowledge regarding potential transmission routes and the rapidly developed diagnostics has been guiding the world for managing the disease indicating an immediate need for a detailed understanding of the pathogen and the disease-biology. Over a very short period of time, researchers have generated a lot of information in unprecedented ways in the key areas, including viral entry into the host, dominant mutation, potential transmission routes, diagnostic targets and their detection assays, potential therapeutic targets and drug molecules for inhibiting viral entry and/or its replication in the host including cross-neutralizing antibodies and vaccine candidates that could help us to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In the current review, we have summarized the available knowledge about the pathogen and the disease, COVID-19. We believe that this readily available knowledge base would serve as a valuable resource to the scientific and clinical community and may help in faster development of the solution to combat the disease.

Accurate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys require robust multi-antigen assays

There is a plethora of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests based either on nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (N), S1-subunit of spike glycoprotein (S1) or receptor binding domain (RBD). Although these single-antigen based tests demonstrate high clinical performance, there is growing evidence regarding their limitations in epidemiological serosurveys. To address this, we developed a Luminex-based multiplex immunoassay that detects total antibodies (IgG/IgM/IgA) against the N, S1 and RBD antigens and used it to compare antibody responses in 1225 blood donors across Greece. Seroprevalence based on single-antigen readouts was strongly influenced by both the antigen type and cut-off value and ranged widely [0.8% (95% CI 0.4-1.5%)-7.5% (95% CI 6.0-8.9%)]. A multi-antigen approach requiring partial agreement between RBD and N or S1 readouts (RBD&N|S1 rule) was less affected by cut-off selection, resulting in robust seroprevalence estimation [0.6% (95% CI 0.3-1.1%)-1.2% (95% CI 0.7-2.0%)] and accurate identification of seroconverted individuals.

A flexible, pan-species, multi-antigen platform for the detection and monitoring of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the vaccination effort that is ongoing has created an unmet need for accessible, affordable, flexible and precise platforms for monitoring the induction, specificity and maintenance of virus-specific immune responses. Herein we validate a multiplex (Luminex-based) assay capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies irrespective of host species, antibody isotype, and specimen type (e.g. plasma, serum, saliva or blood spots). The well-established precision of Luminex-based assays provides the ability to follow changes in antibody levels over time to many antigens, including multiple permutations of the most common SARS-CoV-2 antigens. This platform can easily measure antibodies known to correlate with neutralization activity as well as multiple non-SARS-CoV-2 antigens such as vaccines (e.g. Tetanus toxoid) or those from frequently encountered agents (influenza), which serve as stable reference points for quantifying the changing SARS-specific responses. All of the antigens utilized in our study can be made in-house, many in E. coli using readily available plasmids. Commercially sourced antigens may also be incorporated and newly available antigen variants can be rapidly produced and integrated, making the platform adaptable to the evolving viral strains in this pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 RapidPlex: A Graphene-Based Multiplexed Telemedicine Platform for Rapid and Low-Cost COVID-19 Diagnosis and Monitoring

The COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing global challenge for public health systems. Ultrasensitive and early identification of infection is critical in preventing widespread COVID-19 infection by presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, especially in the community and in-home settings. We demonstrate a multiplexed, portable, wireless electrochemical platform for ultra-rapid detection of COVID-19: the SARS-CoV-2 RapidPlex. It detects viral antigen nucleocapsid protein, IgM and IgG antibodies, as well as the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein, based on our mass-producible laser-engraved graphene electrodes. We demonstrate ultrasensitive, highly selective, and rapid electrochemical detection in the physiologically relevant ranges. We successfully evaluated the applicability of our SARS-CoV-2 RapidPlex platform with COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative blood and saliva samples. Based on this pilot study, our multiplexed immunosensor platform may allow for high-frequency at-home testing for COVID-19 telemedicine diagnosis and monitoring.