Viruses are responsible for multiple infections in humans that impose huge health burdens on individuals and populations worldwide. Therefore, numerous diagnostic methods and strategies have been developed for prevention, management, and decreasing the burden of viral diseases, each having its advantages and limitations. Viral infections are commonly detected using serological and nucleic acid-based methods. However, these conventional and clinical approaches have some limitations that can be resolved by implementing other detector devices. Therefore, the search for sensitive, selective, portable, and costless approaches as efficient alternative clinical methods for point of care testing (POCT) analysis has gained much attention in recent years. POCT is one of the ultimate goals in virus detection, and thus, the tests need to be rapid, specific, sensitive, accessible, and user-friendly. In this review, after a brief overview of viruses and their characteristics, the conventional viral detection methods, the clinical approaches, and their advantages and shortcomings are firstly explained. Then, LFA systems working principles, benefits, classification are discussed. Furthermore, the studies regarding designing and employing LFAs in diagnosing different types of viruses, especially SARS-CoV-2 as a main concern worldwide and innovations in the LFAs' approaches and designs, are comprehensively discussed here. Furthermore, several strategies addressed in some studies for overcoming LFA limitations like low sensitivity are reviewed. Numerous techniques are adopted to increase sensitivity and perform quantitative detection. Employing several visualization methods, using different labeling reporters, integrating LFAs with other detection methods to benefit from both LFA and the integrated detection device advantages, and designing unique membranes to increase reagent reactivity, are some of the approaches that are highlighted.

Lateral flow assays (LFA) as an alternative medical diagnosis method for detection of virus species: The intertwine of nanotechnology with sensing strategies.

We are writing to express concerns over aspects of the establishment of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in England. NHS England and NHS Improvement wrote to NHS trusts and pathology networks on 25 May 2020, asking them to offer antibody testing at short notice and ramp up capacity to thousands of samples a day.12

We have three concerns about the request. Firstly, there is no specific clinical indication for the test on an individual basis. Secondly, the performance of these assays has not yet been assessed to the standard typically required of a novel test. And thirdly, the resource implications are not considered.

We support the rapid provision of diagnostic tests for individual and public health and recognise the need to deliver at pace. It is essential, however, that quality systems, which have evolved over many years and are the foundation for delivering the right result of the right test to the right person at the right time, are not circumvented.

In usual clinical practice, antibody testing fulfils several purposes. In acute illness, an IgM antibody response can be used to diagnose an infectious …

/pdf/rapid-roll-out-of-sars-cov-2-antibody-testing-a-concern-5b3bl7rgjg.pdf

Rapid roll out of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing-a concern [letter].

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. 

/pdf/antibody-tests-for-identification-of-current-and-past-12g43ag9.pdf

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has reached 28 million cases worldwide in 1 year. The serological detection of antibodies against the virus will play a pivotal role in complementing molecular tests to improve diagnostic accuracy, contact tracing, vaccine efficacy testing, and seroprevalence surveillance. Here, we aimed first to evaluate a lateral flow assay's ability to identify specific IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and second, to report the seroprevalence estimates of these antibodies among health care workers and healthy volunteer blood donors in Panama. We recruited study participants between April 30th and July 7th, 2020. For the test validation and performance evaluation, we analyzed serum samples from participants with clinical symptoms and confirmed positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, and a set of pre-pandemic serum samples. We used two by two table analysis to determine the test positive and negative percentage agreement as well as the Kappa agreement value with a 95% confidence interval. Then, we used the lateral flow assay to determine seroprevalence among serum samples from COVID-19 patients, potentially exposed health care workers, and healthy volunteer donors. Our results show this assay reached a positive percent agreement of 97.2% (95% CI 84.2-100.0%) for detecting both IgM and IgG. The assay showed a Kappa of 0.898 (95%CI 0.811-0.985) and 0.918 (95% CI 0.839-0.997) for IgM and IgG, respectively. The evaluation of serum samples from hospitalized COVID-19 patients indicates a correlation between test sensitivity and the number of days since symptom onset; the highest positive percent agreement [87% (95% CI 67.0-96.3%)] was observed at ≥15 days post-symptom onset (PSO). We found an overall antibody seroprevalence of 11.6% (95% CI 8.5-15.8%) among both health care workers and healthy blood donors. Our findings suggest this lateral flow assay could contribute significantly to implementing seroprevalence testing in locations with active community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Performance of a Point of Care Test for Detecting IgM and IgG Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 and Seroprevalence in Blood Donors and Health Care Workers in Panama

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Blood donors are increasingly being recognized as an informative resource for surveillance. We aimed to review severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence studies conducted among blood donors to investigate methodological biases and provide guidance for future research. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed and preprint publications between January 2020 and January 2021. Two reviewers used standardized forms to extract seroprevalence estimates and data on methodology pertaining to population sampling, periodicity, assay characteristics, and antibody kinetics. National data on cumulative incidence and social distancing policies were extracted from publicly available sources and summarized. RESULTS Thirty-three studies representing 1,323,307 blood donations from 20 countries worldwide were included (sample sizes ranged from 22 to 953,926 donations). The majority of the studies (79%) reported seroprevalence rates <10% (ranging from 0% to 76% [after adjusting for waning antibodies]). Overall, less than 1 in 5 studies reported standardized seroprevalence rates to reflect the demographics of the general population. Stratification by age and sex were most common (64% of studies), followed by region (48%). A total of 52% of studies reported seroprevalence at a single time point. Overall, 27 unique assay combinations were identified, 55% of studies used a single assay and only 39% adjusted seroprevalence rates for imperfect test characteristics. Among the nationally representative studies, case detection was most underrepresented in Kenya (1:1264). CONCLUSION By the end of 2020, seroprevalence rates were far from reaching herd immunity. In addition to differences in community transmission and diverse public health policies, study designs and methodology were likely contributing factors to seroprevalence heterogeneity.

/pdf/current-challenges-of-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-1co9umhas5.pdf

Current challenges of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence studies among blood donors: A scoping review

Novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiologic agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has reached 28 million cases worldwide in eight months. The serological detection of antibodies against the virus will play a pivotal role in complementing molecular tests to improve diagnostic accuracy, contact tracing, vaccine efficacy testing and seroprevalence surveillance. Here, we aimed first to evaluate a lateral flow assay’s ability to identify specific IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and second, to report the seroprevalence of these antibodies among health care workers and healthy volunteer blood donors in Panama. We recruited study participants between April 30th and July 7th, 2020. For the test validation and performance evaluation, we analyzed serum samples from participants with clinical symptoms and confirmed positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, and a set of pre-pandemic serum samples. We used two by two table analysis to determine the test sensitivity and specificity as well as the kappa agreement value with a 95% confidence interval. Then, we used the lateral flow assay to determine seroprevalence among serum samples from COVID-19 patients, potentially exposed health care workers, and healthy volunteer donors. Our results show this assay reached a positive percent agreement of 97.2% (95% CI 84.2-100.0%) for detecting both IgM and IgG. The assay showed a kappa of 0.898 (95%CI 0.811-0.985) and 0.918 (95% CI 0.839-0.997) for IgM and IgG, respectively. The evaluation of serum samples from hospitalized COVID-19 patients indicates a correlation between test sensitivity and the number of days since symptom onset; the highest positive percent agreement (87% (95% CI 67.0-96.3%)) was observed at ≥15 days post-symptom onset. We found an overall antibody seroprevalence of 11.6% (95% CI 8.5-15.8%) among both health care workers and healthy blood donors. Our findings suggest this lateral flow assay could contribute significantly to implementing seroprevalence testing in locations with active community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

/pdf/performance-of-a-point-of-care-test-for-detecting-igm-and-25wms37e0y.pdf

Performance of a point of care test for detecting IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and seroprevalence in blood donors and health care workers in Panama

Fernando Diaz Subía

Papers

Performance of a Point of Care Test for Detecting IgM and IgG Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2 and Seroprevalence in Blood Donors and Health Care Workers in Panama

Performance of a point of care test for detecting IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and seroprevalence in blood donors and health care workers in Panama