Analytical performances of the AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex assay for simultaneous detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial viruses in respiratory specimens.

Although patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza A, influenza B and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) show comparable or very similar manifestations, the therapeutic approaches of these respiratory viral infections are different, which requires an accurate diagnosis. Recently, the novel multiplex real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex (BioSynex SA, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France) allows simultaneous detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV in respiratory tract samples. We herein evaluated the performance of the AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex for the detection of the four viruses in respiratory specimens, using Allplex™ Respiratory Panel 1 and 2019-nCoV assays (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) as reference comparator assays. A total of 359 archived predetermined respiratory samples, including 83, 145, 19 and 95 positive specimens for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B and RSV respectively, were included. The AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex showed high concordance with the reference assays, with an overall agreement for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV at 97.6%, 98.8%, 98.3% and 100.0%, respectively, and high κ values ranging from 0.93 to 1.00, indicating an almost perfect agreement between assays. Furthermore, high correlations of cycle threshold (Ct) values were observed for positive samples of the four viruses between the AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex and comparator assays, with an overall high agreement between Ct values assessed by Bland-Altman analyses. In conclusion, these observations demonstrate that the multiplex AMPLIQUICK® Respiratory Triplex is a reliable assay for the qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, influenza B, and RSV in respiratory specimens, which may prove useful for streamlining diagnostics during the winter influenza-seasons.

Review of authorship for COVID-19 research conducted during the 2020 first-wave epidemic in Africa reveals emergence of promising African biomedical research and persisting asymmetry of international collaborations.

OBJECTIVES: The contribution of African authors to the biomedical literature is small. We evaluated the African and non-African scientific production published in the international literature on the COVID-19 in Africa during the first year of the epidemic (2020). METHODS: Papers on COVID-19 in Africa were extracted from the Medline (PubMed) database for bibliometric analysis including the proportions of three leading and last authors by study type, study country, authors' and laboratories/institutions' countries of affiliation and journal ranking. RESULTS: A total of 160 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. The majority (91.3%) was produced by half (53.7%) of African countries, with important regional disparities, and generally without sources of funding mentioned. The majority (>85.0) of authors in lead positions (first, second, third and last authors) were Africans. Only a small number (8.7%) of studies on COVID-19 in Africa were carried out by laboratories not on the African continent (mainly Europe, USA and China) and generally received funding. The last and first authors were more frequently of non-African origin in journals with an Impact Factor ranking ≥1, and more frequently of African origin in journals with a lower ranking (< 1). The first and last non-African authors tended to report their studies in high ranking ≥1 journals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the emergence of promising African research capable of publishing in indexed but low-impact factor medical journals and reveals the persistence of a North-South asymmetry in international cooperation in biomedical research with Africa.

Evaluation of the Practicability of Biosynex Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 AG+ for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein from Self-Collected Nasal Mid-Turbinate Secretions in the General Public in France.

Due to their ease-of-use, lateral flow assay SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests could be suitable candidates for antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic self-test (Ag-RDST). We evaluated the practicability of the Ag-RDST BIOSYNEX Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 Ag+ (Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland), using self-collected nasal secretions from the turbinate medium (NMT), in 106 prospectively included adult volunteers living in Paris, France. The majority of the participants correctly understood the instructions for use (94.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 88.3-97.4), showing a great ability to perform the entire self-test procedure to obtain a valid and interpretable result (100%; 95% CI: 96.5-100), and demonstrated the ability to correctly interpret test results (96.2%; 95% CI: 94.2-97.5) with a high level of general satisfaction. About one in eight participants (# 15%) needed verbal help to perform or interpret the test, and only 3.8% of test results were misinterpreted. By reference to multiplex real-time RT-PCR, the Ag-RDST showed 90.9% and 100% sensitivity and specificity, respectively, and high agreement (98.1%), reliability (0.94), and accuracy (90.9%) to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigen. Taken together, our study demonstrates the high usability and accuracy of BIOSYNEX Antigen Self-Test COVID-19 Ag+ for supervised self-collected NMT sampling in an unselected adult population living in France.

Analytical performance of the point-of-care BIOSYNEX COVID-19 Ag BSS for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in nasopharyngeal swabs: a prospective field evaluation during the COVID-19 third wave in France.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy and reliability of rapid diagnostic tests are critical for monitoring and diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of the BIOSYNEX COVID-19 Ag BSS (Biosynex Swiss SA, Fribourg, Switzerland) antigen rapid diagnostic test (BIOSYNEX Ag-RDT), which targets the SARS-CoV-2 N-nucleocapsid protein for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The Ag-RDT was compared with a real-time RT-PCR (rtRT-PCR) as gold standard for performance measurement. METHODS: Two nasopharyngeal flocked swabs were prospectively collected simultaneously in March and April 2021 from 967 individuals aged ≥ 18 years tested for SARS-CoV-2 in two private laboratories, Paris, France. RESULTS: Overall, the Ag-RDT demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 81.8%, 99.6%, 96.6%, and 97.5%, respectively. The agreement (97.0%), reliability assessed using Cohen's κ-coefficient (0.87), and accuracy evaluated using Youden index (J) (81.6%) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 were high. The analytical performance of the Ag-RDT remained high when there was significant viral shedding (i.e., N gene Ct values ≤ 33 on reference RT-PCR). The sensitivity was only 55.2% in case of low or very low viral excretion (Ct > 33). CONCLUSIONS: The BIOSYNEX Ag-RDT is a promising, potentially simple diagnostic tool, especially in symptomatic COVID-19 patients with substantial viral excretion in the nasopharynx.

Comparative practicability and analytical performances of Credo VitaPCR™ Flu A&B and Cepheid Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV platforms.

To compare the practicability (usability and satisfaction) and analytical performances of VitaPCR™ Flu A&B Assay (Credo Diagnostics Biomedical Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Republic of Singapore) and Xpert® Xpress Flu/RSV kit (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA), two rapid point-of-care (POC) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) by reference to multiplex RT-PCR for respiratory viruses. Nasopharyngeal swabs (n=117) were collected from patients with influenza-like illness in Paris, France. Thawed specimens were further analyzed with both NAATs. The usability was comparable for both NAATs. Satisfaction questionnaire was better for the VitaPCR™ platform for the short time of test result in 20 minutes. Both NAATs showed comparable sensitivities (VitaPCRTM: 95.0%; Xpert® Xpress: 97.5%) and specificities (100%) for influenza A/B RNA detection, with excellent reliability and accuracy between both NAATs. Both VitaPCR™ and Xpert® Xpress NAATs can be implemented in hospital setting as POC NAATs to rapidly detect influenza A/B RNA in symptomatic patients.

Unexpected high frequency of unspecific reactivities by testing pre-epidemic blood specimens from Europe and Africa with SARS-CoV-2 IgG-IgM antibody rapid tests points to IgM as the Achilles heel.

We aimed to evaluate the rates of false-positive test results of three rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM detection. Two serum panels from patients hospitalized in Paris, France, and from patients living in Bangui, Central African Republic, acquired before the 2019 COVID-19 outbreak, were tested by 3 CE IVD-labeled RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 serology (BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 BSS [IgG/IgM]; SIENNA™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette; NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19). Detectable IgG or IgM reactivities could be observed in 31 (3.43%) of the 902 IgG and IgM bands of the 3 RDTs used with all pre-epidemic sera. The frequencies of IgG/IgM reactivities were similar for European (3.20%) and African (3.55%) sera. IgM reactivities were observed in 9 European and 14 African sera, while IgG reactivity was observed in only 1 African serum (15.1% vs. 0.66%). The test NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19 showed the highest rates of IgG or IgM reactivities (6.12% [18/294]), while the test BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 BSS (IgG/IgM) showed the lowest rate (1.36% [4/294]). Some combinations of 2 RDTs in series allowed decreasing significantly the risk of false-positive test results. Our observations point to the risk of false-positive reactivities when using currently available RDT for SARS-CoV-2 serological screening, especially for the IgM band, even if the test is CE IVD-labeled and approved by national health authorities, and provide the rational basis for confirmatory testing by another RDT in case of positive initial screening.

Performances of the VitaPCR™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay during the second wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in France.

To assess the practicability (usability and satisfaction) and analytical performances of the VitaPCR™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Credo Diagnostics Biomedical Pte. Ltd.), a rapid point-of-care nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), by reference to real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) for respiratory viruses. The practicability of the VitaPCR™ Assay and Instrument was assessed from usability evaluation and a satisfaction questionnaire. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 239 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like illness during the second epidemic wave, in Paris, France. Overall, the usability of the VitaPCR™ Instrument was high. The satisfaction questionnaire indicated a high appreciation of the VitaPCR™ NAAT mainly for the short duration of analysis in only 20 min. A total of 140 and 99 samples were positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by rRT-PCR, respectively. In the event of significant viral load (i.e., N gene Ct values 33), the platform's analytical performances dropped significantly, with lower sensitivity, concordance, and accuracy, while its specificity remained high. The VitaPCR™ SARS-CoV-2 Assay is an accurate rapid point-of-care NAAT, suitable for clinical practice for the rapid diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in patients with COVID-19-suspected symptoms.

Analytical performances of five SARS-CoV-2 whole-blood finger-stick IgG-IgM combined antibody rapid tests.

Facing the ongoing pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, there is an urgent need for serological assays identifying individuals previously infected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). We herein compared five new CE-IVD-labeled commercially available SARS-CoV-2 whole-blood finger-stick IgG/IgM combined RDTs, in parallel according to the manufacturers' instructions, with two serum panels obtained from 48 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (panel I) and from a group of 52 patients randomly selected, for whom serum samples collected before the COVID-19 epidemic (from October 1 to November 30, 2019) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 IgG (panel II). We found a sensitivity of 95.8 %, 91.6 %, 92.3 %, 97.9 % and 91.4 %, and a specificity of 98.1 %, 86.5 %, 100 %, 98.1 % and 84.6 %, for BIOSYNEX COVID-19 BSS (IgG/IgM) (Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland), Humasis COVID-19 IgG/IgM Test (Humasis Co., Ltd., Gyneonggi, Republic of Korea), LYHER COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test (Medakit Ltd, Hong Kong, China), SIENNA™ COVID-19 (IgG/IgM) Rapid Test Cassette (Salofa Oy, Salo, Finland) and NG-BIOTECH COVID-19 (IgG/IgM) (NG-Biotech, Guipry, France), respectively. Commercially available SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM combined RDTs have a sufficient sensitivity for identifying individuals with past SARS-CoV-2 infection, but some RDTs may lack of specificity, with risk of false positivity mainly for the IgM band.

Capillary whole-blood IgG-IgM COVID-19 self-test as a serological screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection adapted to the general public.

The practicability of a prototype capillary whole-blood IgG-IgM COVID-19 self-test (Exacto® COVID-19 self-test, Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland) as a serological screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection adapted to the general public was evaluated in a cross-sectional, general adult population study performed between April and May 2020 in Strasbourg, France, consisting of face-to-face, paper-based, semi-structured, and self-administrated questionnaires. Practicability was defined as the correct use of the self-test and the correct interpretation of the result. The correct use of self-test was conditioned by the presence of the control band after 15-min of migration. The correct interpretation of the tests was defined by the percent agreement between the tests results read and interpret by the participants compared to the expected results coded by the numbers and verified by trained observers. A total of 167 participants (52.7% female; median age, 35.8 years; 82% with post-graduate level) were enrolled, including 83 and 84 for usability and test results interpretation substudies, respectively. All participants (100%; 95% CI: 95.6-100) correctly used the self-test. However, 12 (14.5%; 95% CI: 8.5-23.6) asked for verbal help. The percent agreement between the tests results read and interpret by the participants compared to the expected results was 98.5% (95% CI: 96.5-99.4). However, misinterpretation occurred in only 2.3% of positive and 1.2% of invalid test results. Finally, all (100%) participants found that performing the COVID-19 self-test was easy; and 98.8% found the interpretation of the self-test results easy. Taken together, these pilot observations demonstrated for the first-time, high practicability and satisfaction of COVID-19 self-testing for serological IgG and IgM immune status, indicating its potential for use by the general public to complete the arsenal of available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in the urgent context of the COVID-19 epidemic.