An Assessment of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test in Bangladesh.

Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial to prevent its spread. This study aimed to document test sensitivity/specificity, correlation with cycle threshold value from polymerase chain reaction (PCR), fitness-for-use in different populations and settings, and user perspectives that could inform large-scale implementation. In this study, we evaluated the performance of a rapid antigen detection test, BD Veritor, and compared this (and another rapid test, Standard Q) against reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) in terms of sensitivity and specificity in 130 symptomatic and 130 asymptomatic adults. In addition, we evaluated the suitability and ease of use of the BD Veritor test in a subsample of study participants (n = 42) and implementers (n = 5). At 95% confidence interval, the sensitivity of the BD Veritor and Standard Q test were 70% and 63% in symptomatic and 87% and 73% in asymptomatic individuals, respectively, regarding positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results. Overall, the BD Veritor test was 78% sensitive and 99.5% specific compared with RT-PCR irrespective of the cycle threshold. This warrants large field evaluation as well as use of the rapid antigen test for quick assessment of SARS-CoV-2 for containment of epidemics in the country.

Systematic Approach to Address Early Pandemic's Diagnostic Unmet Needs.

During the first few months of the global Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the medical research community had to expeditiously develop, select, and deploy novel diagnostic methods and tools to address the numerous testing challenges presented by the novel virus. Integrating a systematic approach to diagnostic selection with a rapid validation protocol in a clinical setting can shorten the timeline to bring new technologies to practice. In response to the urgent need to provide tools for identifying SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals, we developed a framework for assessing technologies against a set of prioritized performance metrics to guide device selection. We also developed and proposed clinical validation frameworks for the rapid screening of new technologies. The rubric described here represents a versatile approach that can be extended to future technology assessments and can be implemented in preparation for future emerging pathogens.

Can mHealth Technology Help Mitigate the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Goal: The aim of the study herein reported was to review mobile health (mHealth) technologies and explore their use to monitor and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A Task Force was assembled by recruiting individuals with expertise in electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), wearable sensors, and digital contact tracing technologies. Its members collected and discussed available information and summarized it in a series of reports. Results: The Task Force identified technologies that could be deployed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and would likely be suitable for future pandemics. Criteria for their evaluation were agreed upon and applied to these systems. Conclusions: mHealth technologies are viable options to monitor COVID-19 patients and be used to predict symptom escalation for earlier intervention. These technologies could also be utilized to monitor individuals who are presumed non-infected and enable prediction of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, thus facilitating the prioritization of diagnostic testing.

Evaluation of serological lateral flow assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Lateral flow assays can detect anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies to monitor transmission. However, standardized evaluation of their accuracy and tools to aid in interpreting results are needed. METHODS: We evaluated 20 IgG and IgM assays selected from available tests in April 2020. We evaluated the assays' performance using 56 pre-pandemic negative and 56 SARS-CoV-2-positive plasma samples, collected 10-40 days after symptom onset, confirmed by a molecular test and analyzed by an ultra-sensitive immunoassay. Finally, we developed a user-friendly web app to extrapolate the positive predictive values based on their accuracy and local prevalence. RESULTS: Combined IgG + IgM sensitivities ranged from 33.9 to 94.6%, while combined specificities ranged from 92.6 to 100%. The highest sensitivities were detected in Lumiquick for IgG (98.2%), BioHit for both IgM (96.4%), and combined IgG + IgM sensitivity (94.6%). Furthermore, 11 LFAs and 8 LFAs showed perfect specificity for IgG and IgM, respectively, with 15 LFAs showing perfect combined IgG + IgM specificity. Lumiquick had the lowest estimated limit-of-detection (LOD) (0.1 µg/mL), followed by a similar LOD of 1.5 µg/mL for CareHealth, Cellex, KHB, and Vivachek. CONCLUSION: We provide a public resource of the accuracy of select lateral flow assays with potential for home testing. The cost-effectiveness, scalable manufacturing process, and suitability for self-testing makes LFAs an attractive option for monitoring disease prevalence and assessing vaccine responsiveness. Our web tool provides an easy-to-use interface to demonstrate the impact of prevalence and test accuracy on the positive predictive values.