An update on lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Over the last three years, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of novel diagnostic tests have been developed. Assays to evaluate the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 have been widely considered as part of the control strategy. The lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), to detect both IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2, has been widely studied as a point-of-care (POC) test. Compared to laboratory tests, LFIAs are faster, cheaper and user-friendly, thus available also in areas with low economic resources. Soon after the onset of the pandemic, numerous kits for rapid antibody detection were put on the market with an emergency use authorization. However, since then, scientists have tried to better define the accuracy of these tests and their usefulness in different contexts. In fact, while during the first phase of the pandemic LFIAs for antibody detection were auxiliary to molecular tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19, successively these tests became a tool of seroprevalence surveillance to address infection control policies. When in 2021 a massive vaccination campaign was implemented worldwide, the interest in LFIA reemerged due to the need to establish the extent and the longevity of immunization in the vaccinated population and to establish priorities to guide health policies in low-income countries with limited access to vaccines. Here, we summarize the accuracy, the advantages and limits of LFIAs as POC tests for antibody detection, highlighting the efforts that have been made to improve this technology over the last few years.

COVID-19 serology-based testing in pericarditis: a case report

Recently published studies have shown that cardiac complications are not uncommon in patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease. We describe the case of a 55-year-old female presenting with chest pain after having had influenza-like symptoms. Chest computed tomography showed a circumferential pericardial effusion, confirmed by transthoracic echocardiography with a normal left ventricular ejection fraction. The nasopharyngeal swab was negative, but the use of a rapid test identified COVID-19 antibodies, revealing the infectious cause of the pericarditis.Copyright © EMH Schweizerischer Arzteverlag AG. All Rights Reserved.

Development and Validation of a Rapid Screening Test for HTLV-I IgG Antibodies.

Initial diagnosis of human T cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV) infections is mainly based by detecting antibodies in plasma or serum using laboratory-based methods. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a rapid screening test for HTLV-I antibodies. Our rapid screening test uses HTLV-I p24 antigen conjugated to gold nanoparticles and an anti-human IgG antibody immobilized to a nitrocellulose strip to detect human HTLV-I p24-specific IgG antibodies via immunochromatography. Performance of the rapid screening test for HTLV-I was conducted on a total of 118 serum specimens collected in Salvador, Bahia, the epicenter for HTLV-1 infection in Brazil. Using a Western blot test as the comparator, 55 serum specimens were HTLV-I positive, 5 were HTLV-I and HTLV-II positive, and 58 were negative. The sensitivity of the rapid screening test for HTLV-1 was 96.7% and the specificity was 100%. The rapid screening test did not show cross-reaction with serum specimens from individuals with potentially interfering infections including those caused by HTLV-II, HIV-I, HIV-II, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, herpes simplex virus, Epstein-Barr virus, SARS-CoV-2, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Treponema pallidum, Toxoplasma gondii, and Plasmodium falciparum. The rapid screening test also did not show cross-reaction with potentially interfering substances. Strategies for HTLV diagnosis in non- and high-endemic areas can be improved with low-cost, rapid screening tests.

Implementing Rapid Antibody Test to Identify Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection as Initial Screening in Admitting Pregnant Women, Yes or No?

Introduction: Assessing patient history is solely insufficient to identify the asymptomatic Covid-19 cases in pregnancy. Therefore, regular laboratory examinations should be deemed to find the actual case. However, this strategy might be more challenging for a limited-resource area. Hence, finding the most effective laboratory screening is beneficial. This study aimed to collate the effectiveness of rapid antibody and universal reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for asymptomatic Covid-19 testing among pregnant women in low-resource settings. Methods: We performed a study using one-year retrospective data of asymptomatic Covid-19 cases among pregnant women admitted in Dr. Soetomo General Academic Hospital Surabaya, conducted with the paired rapid antibody test and RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 result. Results: Of 265 cases included, 217 samples had a reactive rapid antibody test (81.89%). There was a significant association between rapid antibody test and RT-PCR (p=0.026) with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 89%, 22%, 38%, and 79%, respectively. Thus, it can identify more asymptomatic cases compared to identification by history and symptoms only. This study also revealed a higher significant efficiency cost (p<0.001) by reducing the overall expense up to IDR 36, 180, 000 (USD 2, 514) or 15% lower than the universal RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy. Conclusion: This study suggests that implementing a rapid antibody test has favour in identifying more asymptomatic Covid-19 cases in pregnancy and evince more cost-effective than universal PCR testing. © 2022 UPM Press. All rights reserved.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among university athletic club members: A cross-sectional survey.

School-based coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing is an important part of a comprehensive prevention strategy in public health. To assess the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in a university athletic club community with repeated occurrences of SARS-CoV-2 infections, we conducted a cross-sectional survey for asymptomatic antibody prevalence using a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antibody test kit. On January 26, 2021 we administered questionnaires to determine their history of contact with infected individuals and took blood samples from 129 undergraduates. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among the subjects was 3.9%. Only 6.2% of the participants reported close contact with infected individuals. In this study, we clarified the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in university athletic clubs where SARS-CoV-2 infections had repeatedly occurred, which will be helpful in discussing how to identify and prevent the transmission of infections within university athletic club communities.

Performance evaluation of four rapid antibody tests for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

BACKGROUND: The prompt detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is important in the therapeutic management of infected patients. Rapid diagnostic tests are widely used for this purpose. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of four SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin IgG/IgM rapid diagnostic tests in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and/or sputum were collected from 30 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and 30 healthy volunteers. All specimens were tested using four SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid diagnostic tests and real-time polymerase chain reaction. We assessed the clinical sensitivity and specificity of the tests. RESULTS: The clinical sensitivity of FREND™, SsmarTest™, BIOCREDIT™, and IVDLAB™ was 96.67%, 100.00%, 100.00%, and 96.67%, respectively, compared to real-time polymerase chain reaction. The clinical specificity was 96.67%, 100.00%, 86.67%, and 96.67%, respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings could expedite the detection of SARS-CoV-2 and thus reduce the risk of further transmission of the virus.

Adverse Events and Immunogenicity of mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccine among Healthcare Workers: A Single-Centre Experience.

Background and Objectives: The safety and effectiveness of vaccines are among the key priorities in COVID-19 pandemic management. Moreover, evidence-based data regarding vaccine safety and immunogenicity can play an important role in building the trust of the community regarding vaccination. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and immunogenicity of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine among healthcare workers in one hospital, 21 days after first dose. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in the Hospital of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences between February and March 2021. Hospital employees who arrived to receive the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine 21 days after the first one were invited to participate in the study: they were asked to complete an anonymous adverse events questionnaire and were offered a SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid test. The study was performed at a single point, 21 days after the first dose of the vaccine. Results: Data of 4181 vaccine recipients were analysed. The first vaccine dose was associated with a 53.6% incidence of adverse events, mainly local reactions. Adverse events occurred more frequently in younger participants and women. Moderate adverse events were experienced by 1.4% of the vaccine recipients; 6.2% were incapacitated. Of the 3439 participants who performed a rapid IgG test, 94.5% were positive for IgG antibodies after the first vaccine dose. Seroconversion rates were lower in participants older than 47 years. Conclusions: Despite 1.4% moderate adverse events, no safety concerns or anaphylaxis were identified. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine induced an immune response in the overwhelming majority of recipients after a single dose. Younger participants experienced adverse events and were positive for IgG antibodies more frequently than older counterparts. It is important to mention that this study specifically considered short-term safety and reactions following vaccination and that long-term adverse effects were not investigated in the study. Thus, future research into both long-term adverse reactions and immune system programming is essential.

Two rapid SARS-CoV-2 disposable devices for semi-quantitative S-RBD antibody levels determination compared with CLIA and ELISA assays at different protective thresholds.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Performance of two disposable devices for identifying subjects with low anti-SARS-CoV-2 protection was compared with that of automated enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) and chemiluminescent (CLIA) assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In July 2021, 123 healthcare workers (HCW), twice vaccinated by BNT162b2/Comirnaty mRNA (BioNTech-Pfizer), underwent Ab iRapid COVID-19 Quant "Neutralizing" Self-test (iRapid Self-test) and "Neutralizing" Professional-use (iRapid pro) (DIESSE, Diagnostica Senese, Siena, Italy). Simultaneously, serum Ab were determined by Maglumi 2000 plus (anti S-RBD CLIA assay, Snibe Diagnostics, Shenzhen, China) and SARS-CoV-2 "Neutralizing" Ab Chorus ELISA (DIESSE, Siena, Italy). Results were evaluated against two "protective-thresholds", 90 kBAU/L and 506 kBAU/L. RESULTS: HCW mean age, 46.2 (±12.6) years; 26 (20.5%), males, 101 (79.5%), females. The mean time interval (and standard deviation) between the first vaccine dose and Ab determination was 129.5 (±36.4) days and was neither gender (p = 0.879) nor age (p = 0.341) related. With Maglumi, 114 (89.7%) and 43 (33.8%) HCW presented Ab ≥ 90 kBAU/L and Ab ≥ 506 kBAU/L, respectively; with Chorus, 96 (75.6%) presented Ab values ≥506 kBAU/L. CLIA and ELISA agreement was 56.7%. At 90 kBAU/L, iRapid self-test and Pro sensitivities were 98.2% (95% CI: 92.7-99.8), specificity 69.2% (95% CI: 38.6-90.9%) and 76.9% (46.2-95%), respectively. At 506 kBAU/L, iRapid sensitivities were 58.1-91.6%, and specificities, 89-96.6%. On evaluating Ab at <4 and ≥4 months, protective titers had decreased. CONCLUSIONS: iRapid semi-quantitative devices had very good overall agreements of 95.1% and 95.9% for detecting individuals with low anti-SARS-CoV-2 protection.

Role of serological rapid antibody test in the management of possible COVID-19 cases.

BACKGROUND: Although the detection of viral particles by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the gold standard diagnostic test for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the false-negative results constitute a big challenge. AIM: To examine a group of patients diagnosed and treated as possible COVID-19 pneumonia whose multiple nasopharyngeal swab samples were negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR but then serological immunoglobulin M/immunoglobulin G (IgM/IgG) antibody against SARS-CoV-2 were detected by rapid antibody test. METHODS: Eighty possible COVID-19 patients who had at least two negative consecutive COVID-19 RT-PCR test and were subjected to serological rapid antibody test were evaluated in this study. RESULTS: The specific serological total IgM/IgG antibody against SARS-CoV-2 was detected in twenty-two patients. The mean age of this patient group was 63.2± 13.1-years-old with a male/female ratio of 11/11. Cough was the most common symptom (90.9%). The most common presenting chest computed tomography findings were bilateral ground glass opacities (77.2%) and alveolar consolidations (50.1%). The mean duration of time from appearance of first symptoms to hospital admission, to hospital admission, to treatment duration and to serological positivity were 8.6 d, 11.2 d, 7.9 d, and 24 d, respectively. Compared with reference laboratory values, serologically positive patients have shown increased levels of acute phase reactants, such as C-reactive protein, ferritin, and procalcitonin and higher inflammatory markers, such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate, lactate dehydrogenase enzyme, and fibrin end-products, such as D-dimer. A left shift on white blood cell differential was observed with increased neutrophil counts and decreased lymphocytes. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the feasibility of a COVID-19 diagnosis based on rapid antibody test in the cases of patients whose RT-PCR samples were negative. Detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antibody test should be included in the diagnostic algorithm in patients with possible COVID-19 pneumonia.

Rapid and Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in High-Risk Hospital Associated Cohorts of Unknown COVID-19 Exposure, a Validation and Epidemiological Study After the First Wave of the Pandemic.

Objective: We aimed to use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to assess the asymptomatic seroprevalence of individuals in high-risk hospital cohorts who's previous COVID-19 exposure is unknown; staff, and patients requiring haemodialysis or chemotherapy after the first wave. Methods: In a single Center, study participants had five SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests done simultaneously; one rapid diagnostic test (RDT) (Superbio Colloidal Gold IgM/IgG), and four laboratory tests (Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG [RE], Abbott Architect i2000SR IgG [AAr], Abbott Alinity IgG [AAl], and Abbott Architect IgM CMIA). To determine seroprevalence, only positive test results on laboratory assay were considered true positives. Results: There were 157 participants, of whom 103 (65.6%) were female with a median age of 50 years (range 19-90). The IgG component of the RDT showed a high number of false positives (n = 18), was inferior to the laboratory assays (p < 0.001 RDT vs. AAl/AAr, p < 0.001 RDT vs. RE), and had reduced specificity (85.5% vs. AAl/AAr, 87.2% vs. RE). Sero-concordance was 97.5% between IgG laboratory assays (RE vs. AAl/AAr). Specificity of the IgM component of the RDT compared to Abbott IgM CMIA was 95.4%. Ten participants had positivity in at least one laboratory assay, seven (9.9%) of which were seen in HCWs. Two (4.1%) hematology/oncology (H/O) patients and a single (2.7%) haemodialysis (HD) were asymptomatically seropositive. Asymptomatic seroprevalence of HCWs compared to patients was not significant (p = 0.105). Conclusion: HCWs (9.9%) had higher, although non-significant asymptomatic seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies compared to high-risk patients (H/O 4.1%, HD 2.7%). An IgM/IgG rapid diagnostic test was inferior to laboratory assays. Sero-concordance of 97.5% was found between IgG laboratory assays, RE vs. AAl/AAr.

Evaluation of the usability of various rapid antibody tests in the diagnostic application for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The usability of laboratory tests related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is critically important for the world undergoing the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study aimed to assess the diagnostic usability of rapid tests for the detection of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 through comparison of their results with the results of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA and with the results of a quantitative test for antibody detection. METHODS: Serum samples were collected from 18 patients undergoing RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Twelve patients were RT-PCR positive while six were negative. A quantitative test based on chemiluminescent immunoassay and three rapid tests based on immunochromatography were performed to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM. RESULTS: All the antibody tests exhibited poor sensitivity at the timing of initial RT-PCR diagnosis. IgG responses occurring prior to or simultaneously with IgM responses were observed through not only the quantitative test but also the three rapid tests. Based on concordance with the quantitative test results, the large variance among the three rapid tests was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: All antibody tests were unsatisfactory to replace RT-PCR for the early diagnosis of COVID-19. Rapid antibody tests as well as a quantitative antibody test were useful in the assessment of immune responses in COVID-19. The obvious variance among the three rapid tests suggested limited accuracy and difficult standardization. Diagnostic usability of rapid antibody tests for COVID-19 should be investigated rigorously.

Development, performance evaluation, and clinical application of a Rapid SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG Test Kit based on automated fluorescence immunoassay.

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic has made a huge impact on health, economies, and societies all over the world. Although reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based nucleic acid detection has been primarily used in the diagnosis of COVID-19, it is time-consuming with limited application scenarios and must be operated by qualified personnel. Antibody test, particularly point-of-care antibody testing, is a suitable complement to nucleic acid test as it provides rapid, portable, and cost-effective detection of infections. In this study, a Rapid Antibody Test Kit was developed based on fluorescence immunochromatography for the sensitive, accurate, and automated detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in human serum, plasma, and whole blood samples within 10 min. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and stability of the test kit were of good performance. No cross-activity and no interference was observed. In the multiple-center parallel study, 223 samples from hospitalized patients were used to evaluate the clinical specificity of the test. Both SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG achieved a clinical specificity of 98.21%. The clinical sensitivities of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG were 79.54% and 87.45%, respectively, among 733 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 samples. For the combined IgM and IgG assays, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.22% and 96.86%, respectively. Our results demonstrate that the combined use of IgM and IgG could serve as a more suitable alternative detection method for patients with COVID-19, and the developed kit is of great public health significance for the prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical performance evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test for determining past exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the number of asymptomatic infections and limited access to high-performance antibody tests, the true prevalence and seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown. To fill this gap, the clinical performance of a point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Assay, a chromatographic immunoassay for detecting IgM/IgG antibodies, in near patient settings was assessed. METHODS: Forty-two anti-SARS-Cov-2 positive (CoV+) and 92 anti-SARS-Cov-2 negative (CoV-) leftover samples from before December 2019 were assessed; the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 was used as the reference assay. Analytical specificity was tested using leftover samples collected before December 2019 from patients with common cold symptoms. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test was 100.0% (95% CI 91.59-100.0) sensitive and 96.74% (95% CI 90.77-99.32) specific, with 0.00% assay failure rate. No cross-reactivity was observed against the common cold panel. Method comparison was additionally conducted by two external laboratories, using 100 CoV+ and 275 CoV- samples, also comparing whole blood versus plasma matrix. The comparison demonstrated 96.00% positive and 96.36% negative percent agreement for plasma with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and 99.20% percent overall agreement between whole blood and EDTA plasma. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody Test demonstrated similar performance to the manufacturer's data and a centralised automated immunoassay, with no cross-reactivity with common cold panels.