Clinical Added Value of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection in Blood Samples.

This study evaluated the performances of immunoassays (LFIA and ELISA) designed for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (Ag)-detection in nasopharyngeal (NP) and serum samples in comparison to RT-PCR. NP samples from patients with respiratory symptoms (183 RT-PCR-positive and 74 RT-PCR-negative samples) were collected from March to April and November to December 2020. Seroconversion and antigen dynamics were assessed by symptom onset and day of RT-PCR diagnosis. Serum samples from 87 COVID-19 patients were used to investigate the added value of Ag quantification, at diagnosis and during follow-up. The sensitivity of COVID-VIRO-LFIA on samples with Ct ≤ 33, considered as the contagious threshold, was 86% on NPs (CI 95%: 79-90.5) and 76% on serum samples (CI 95%: 59.4-88), with a specificity of 100%. Serum N-Ag was detected during active infection as early as day two from symptom onset, with a diagnostic sensitivity of 81.5%. Within one week of symptom onset, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity reached 90.9% (95% CI, 85.1%-94.6%) and 98.3% (95% CI, 91.1%-99.9%), respectively. Serum N-Ag concentration closely correlated with disease severity. Longitudinal analysis revealed the simultaneous increase of antibodies and decrease of N-Ag. Sensitivities of COVID-VIRO-LFIA and COV-QUANTO-ELISA tests on NP and serum samples were close to 80%. They are suitable COVID-19-laboratory diagnostic tests, particularly when blood samples are available, thus reducing the requirement for NP sampling, and subsequent PCR analysis. ELISA titers may help to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes.

Using artificial intelligence to improve COVID-19 rapid diagnostic test result interpretation.

Serological rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used across pathologies, often providing users a simple, binary result (positive or negative) in as little as 5 to 20 min. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, new RDTs for identifying SARS-CoV-2 have rapidly proliferated. However, these seemingly easy-to-read tests can be highly subjective, and interpretations of the visible "bands" of color that appear (or not) in a test window may vary between users, test models, and brands. We developed and evaluated the accuracy/performance of a smartphone application (xRCovid) that uses machine learning to classify SARS-CoV-2 serological RDT results and reduce reading ambiguities. Across 11 COVID-19 RDT models, the app yielded 99.3% precision compared to reading by eye. Using the app replaces the uncertainty from visual RDT interpretation with a smaller uncertainty of the image classifier, thereby increasing confidence of clinicians and laboratory staff when using RDTs, and creating opportunities for patient self-testing.

Quantitative Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Nasopharyngeal Swabs Stored in Transport Medium by a Straightforward LC-MS/MS Assay Targeting Nucleocapsid, Membrane, and Spike Proteins.

Alternative methods to RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection are investigated to provide complementary data on viral proteins, increase the number of tests performed, or identify false positive/negative results. Here, we have developed a simple mass spectrometry assay for SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples using common laboratory reagents. The method employs high sensitivity and selectivity targeted mass spectrometry detection, monitoring nine constitutive peptides representative of the three main viral proteins and a straightforward pellet digestion protocol for convenient routine applications. Absolute quantification of N, M, and S proteins was achieved by addition of isotope-labeled versions of best peptides. Limit of detection, recovery, precision, and linearity were thoroughly evaluated in four representative viral transport media (VTM) containing distinct total protein content. The protocol was sensitive in all swab media with limit of detection determined at 2 × 103 pfu/mL, corresponding to as low as 30 pfu injected into the LC-MS/MS system. When tested on VTM-stored nasopharyngeal swab samples from positive and control patients, sensitivity was similar to or better than rapid immunoassay dipsticks, revealing a corresponding RT-PCR detection threshold at Ct ∼ 24. The study represents the first thorough evaluation of sensitivity and robustness of targeted mass spectrometry in nasal swabs, constituting a promising SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay for the first-line diagnosis of COVID-19 and compatible with the constraints of clinical settings. The raw files generated in this study can be found on PASSEL (Peptide Atlas) under data set identifier PASS01646.

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.