Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. Search methods We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. Authors' conclusions The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

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

Assembly and publication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genome in January 2020 enabled the immediate development of tests to detect the new virus. This began the largest global testing programme in history, in which hundreds of millions of individuals have been tested to date. The unprecedented scale of testing has driven innovation in the strategies, technologies and concepts that govern testing in public health. This Review describes the changing role of testing during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of genomic surveillance to track SARS-CoV-2 transmission around the world, the use of contact tracing to contain disease outbreaks and testing for the presence of the virus circulating in the environment. Despite these efforts, widespread community transmission has become entrenched in many countries and has required the testing of populations to identify and isolate infected individuals, many of whom are asymptomatic. The diagnostic and epidemiological principles that underpin such population-scale testing are also considered, as are the high-throughput and point-of-care technologies that make testing feasible on a massive scale.

/pdf/testing-at-scale-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-2imchmzt36.pdf

Testing at scale during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Large-scale implementation of pooled RNA extraction and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Suppressing infections of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will probably require the rapid identification and isolation of individuals infected with the virus on an ongoing basis. Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests are accurate but costly, which makes the regular testing of every individual expensive. These costs are a challenge for all countries around the world, but particularly for low-to-middle-income countries. Cost reductions can be achieved by pooling (or combining) subsamples and testing them in groups1-7. A balance must be struck between increasing the group size and retaining test sensitivity, as sample dilution increases the likelihood of false-negative test results for individuals with a low viral load in the sampled region at the time of the test8. Similarly, minimizing the number of tests to reduce costs must be balanced against minimizing the time that testing takes, to reduce the spread of the infection. Here we propose an algorithm for pooling subsamples based on the geometry of a hypercube that, at low prevalence, accurately identifies individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 in a small number of tests and few rounds of testing. We discuss the optimal group size and explain why, given the highly infectious nature of the disease, largely parallel searches are preferred. We report proof-of-concept experiments in which a positive subsample was detected even when diluted 100-fold with negative subsamples (compared with 30-48-fold dilutions described in previous studies9-11). We quantify the loss of sensitivity due to dilution and discuss how it may be mitigated by the frequent re-testing of groups, for example. With the use of these methods, the cost of mass testing could be reduced by a large factor. At low prevalence, the costs decrease in rough proportion to the prevalence. Field trials of our approach are under way in Rwanda and South Africa. The use of group testing on a massive scale to monitor infection rates closely and continually in a population, along with the rapid and effective isolation of people with SARS-CoV-2 infections, provides a promising pathway towards the long-term control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

/pdf/a-pooled-testing-strategy-for-identifying-sars-cov-2-at-low-houuoxh1b4.pdf

A pooled testing strategy for identifying SARS-CoV-2 at low prevalence.

Convenient, repeatable, large-scale molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 would be a key weapon to help control the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols are invasive and rely on numerous items that can be subject to supply chain bottlenecks, and as such are not suitable for frequent repeat testing. Specifically, personal protective equipment (PPE), nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs, the associated viral transport media (VTM), and kits for RNA isolation and purification have all been in short supply at various times during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 is spread through droplets and aerosols transmitted through person-to-person contact, and thus saliva may be a relevant medium for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Here we describe a saliva-based testing method that bypasses the need for RNA isolation/purification. In experiments with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus spiked into saliva, this method has a limit of detection of 500-1000 viral particles per mL, rivalling the standard NP swab method, and initial studies also show excellent performance with 100 clinical samples. This saliva-based process is operationally simple, utilizes readily available materials, and can be easily implemented by existing testing sites, thus allowing for high-throughput, rapid, and repeat testing of large populations. Graphical

/pdf/saliva-based-molecular-testing-for-sars-cov-2-that-bypasses-1m1dm01gfk.pdf

Saliva-Based Molecular Testing for SARS-CoV-2 that Bypasses RNA Extraction

Recent reports suggest that 10 to 30% of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS- CoV-2) infected patients are asymptomatic and that viral shedding may occur before symptom onset. Therefore, there is an urgent need to increase diagnostic testing capabilities to prevent disease spread. We developed P-BEST, a method for Pooling-Based Efficient SARS-CoV-2 Testing, which identifies all positive subjects within a set of samples using a single round of testing. Each sample is assigned into multiple pools using a combinatorial pooling strategy based on compressed sensing. We pooled sets of 384 samples into 48 pools, providing both an eightfold increase in testing efficiency and an eightfold reduction in test costs, while identifying up to five positive carriers. We then used P-BEST to screen 1115 health care workers using 144 tests. P- BEST provides an efficient and easy-to-implement solution for increasing testing capacity that can be easily integrated into diagnostic laboratories.

Efficient high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 testing to detect asymptomatic carriers.

The COVID-19 pandemic is rapidly spreading throughout the world. Recent reports suggest that 10-30% of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients are asymptomatic. Other studies report that some subjects have significant viral shedding prior to symptom onset. Since both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic subjects can spread the disease, identifying such individuals is critical for effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Therefore, there is an urgent need to increase diagnostic testing capabilities in order to also screen asymptomatic carriers. In fact, such tests will be routinely required until a vaccine is developed. Yet, a major bottleneck of managing the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries is diagnostic testing, due to limited laboratory capabilities as well as limited access to genome-extraction and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) reagents. We developed P-BEST - a method for Pooling-Based Efficient SARS-CoV-2 Testing, using a non-adaptive group-testing approach, which significantly reduces the number of tests required to identify all positive subjects within a large set of samples. Instead of testing each sample separately, samples are pooled into groups and each pool is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using the standard clinically approved PCR-based diagnostic assay. Each sample is part of multiple pools, using a combinatorial pooling strategy based on compressed sensing designed for maximizing the ability to identify all positive individuals. We evaluated P-BEST using leftover samples that were previously clinically tested for COVID-19. In our current proof-of-concept study we pooled 384 patient samples into 48 pools providing an 8-fold increase in testing efficiency. Five sets of 384 samples, containing 1-5 positive carriers were screened and all positive carriers in each set were correctly identified. P-BEST provides an efficient and easy-to-implement solution for increasing testing capacity that will work with any clinically approved genome-extraction and PCR-based diagnostic methodologies.

/pdf/efficient-high-throughput-sars-cov-2-testing-to-detect-uv0d2nbmj6.pdf

Vered Wuvshet

Papers

Efficient high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 testing to detect asymptomatic carriers.

Efficient high throughput SARS-CoV-2 testing to detect asymptomatic carriers