PATHPOD - A loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)-based point-of-care system for rapid clinical detection of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals in Denmark.

Sensitive and rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a vital goal in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We present in this comprehensive work, for the first time, detailed fabrication and clinical validation of a point of care (PoC) device for rapid, onsite detection of SARS-CoV-2 using a real-time reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) reaction on a polymer cartridge. The PoC system, namely PATHPOD, consisting of a standalone device (weight less than 1.2 kg) and a cartridge, can perform the detection of 10 different samples and two controls in less than 50 min, which is much more rapid than the golden standard real-time reverse-transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), typically taking 16-48 h. The novel total internal reflection (TIR) scheme and the reactions inside the cartridge in the PoC device allow monitoring of the diagnostic results in real-time and onsite. The analytical sensitivity and specificity of the PoC test are comparable with the current RT-PCR, with a limit of detection (LOD) down to 30-50 viral genome copies. The robustness of the PATHPOD PoC system has been confirmed by analyzing 398 clinical samples initially examined in two hospitals in Denmark. The clinical sensitivity and specificity of these tests are discussed.

Trends in Application of SERS Substrates beyond Ag and Au, and Their Role in Bioanalysis.

This article compares the applications of traditional gold and silver-based SERS substrates and less conventional (Pd/Pt, Cu, Al, Si-based) SERS substrates, focusing on sensing, biosensing, and clinical analysis. In recent decades plethora of new biosensing and clinical SERS applications have fueled the search for more cost-effective, scalable, and stable substrates since traditional gold and silver-based substrates are quite expensive, prone to corrosion, contamination and non-specific binding, particularly by S-containing compounds. Following that, we briefly described our experimental experience with Si and Al-based SERS substrates and systematically analyzed the literature on SERS on substrate materials such as Pd/Pt, Cu, Al, and Si. We tabulated and discussed figures of merit such as enhancement factor (EF) and limit of detection (LOD) from analytical applications of these substrates. The results of the comparison showed that Pd/Pt substrates are not practical due to their high cost; Cu-based substrates are less stable and produce lower signal enhancement. Si and Al-based substrates showed promising results, particularly in combination with gold and silver nanostructures since they could produce comparable EFs and LODs as conventional substrates. In addition, their stability and relatively low cost make them viable alternatives for gold and silver-based substrates. Finally, this review highlighted and compared the clinical performance of non-traditional SERS substrates and traditional gold and silver SERS substrates. We discovered that if we take the average sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of clinical SERS assays reported in the literature, those parameters, particularly accuracy (93-94%), are similar for SERS bioassays on AgNP@Al, Si-based, Au-based, and Ag-based substrates. We hope that this review will encourage research into SERS biosensing on aluminum, silicon, and some other substrates. These Al and Si based substrates may respond efficiently to the major challenges to the SERS practical application. For instance, they may be not only less expensive, e.g., Al foil, but also in some cases more selective and sometimes more reproducible, when compared to gold-only or silver-only based SERS substrates. Overall, it may result in a greater diversity of applicable SERS substrates, allowing for better optimization and selection of the SERS substrate for a specific sensing/biosensing or clinical application.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%. CONCLUSION: The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT. FUNDING: The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

Patient characteristics associated with conversion from negative to positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 polymerase chain reaction test results: Implications for clinical false-negativity from a single-center: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 is essential to limiting transmission within healthcare settings. The aim of this study was to identify patient demographic and clinical characteristics that could impact the clinical sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV2) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, matched case-control study of patients who underwent repeated nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR testing at a tertiary care academic medical center between March 1 and July 23, 2020. The primary endpoint was conversion from negative to positive PCR status within 14 days. We conducted conditional logistic regression modeling to assess the associations between demographic and clinical features and conversion to test positivity. RESULTS: Of 51,116 patients with conclusive SARS-CoV2 nasopharyngeal RT-PCR results, 97 patients converted from negative to positive within 14 days. We matched those patients 1:2 to 194 controls by initial test date. In multivariate analysis, clinical suspicion for a respiratory infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 20.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1-141.2) and lack of pulmonary imaging (aOR 4.7, 95% CI: 1.03-21.8) were associated with conversion, while a lower burden of comorbidities trended toward an increased odds of conversion (aOR 2.2, 95% CI: 0.9-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection, especially in relatively healthy individuals, should raise concerns about a clinical false-negative result. We have identified several characteristics that should be considered when creating institutional infection prevention guidelines in the absence of more definitive data and should be included in future studies.

Evaluation of a rapid antigen detection test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) as a point-of-care diagnostic tool for COVID-19 in a pediatric emergency department.

We evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device as a point-of-care diagnostic tool for COVID-19 in 357 patients at a pediatric emergency department. Thirty-four patients tested positive by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, of which 24 were positive by the antigen assay. The sensitivity and specificity of the assay were 70.5% and 100%, respectively.

Second round statewide sentinel-based population survey for estimation of the burden of active infection and anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in the general population of Karnataka, India, during January-February 2021.

Objective: Demonstrate the feasibility of using the existing sentinel surveillance infrastructure to conduct the second round of the serial cross-sectional sentinel-based population survey. Assess active infection, seroprevalence, and their evolution in the general population across Karnataka. Identify local variations for locally appropriate actions. Additionally, assess the clinical sensitivity of the testing kit used on account of variability of antibody levels in the population. Methods: The cross-sectional study of 41,228 participants across 290 healthcare facilities in all 30 districts of Karnataka was done among three groups of participants (low, moderate, and high-risk). The geographical spread was sufficient to capture local variations. Consenting participants were subjected to real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing, and antibody (IgG) testing. Clinical sensitivity was assessed by conducting a longitudinal study among participants identified as COVID-19 positive in the first survey round. Results: Overall weighted adjusted seroprevalence of IgG was 15.6% (95% CI: 14.9-16.3), crude IgG prevalence was 15.0% and crude active infection was 0.5%. Statewide infection fatality rate (IFR) was estimated as 0.11%, and COVID-19 burden estimated between 26.1 to 37.7% (at 90% confidence). Further, Cases-to-infections ratio (CIR) varied 3-35 across units and IFR varied 0.04-0.50% across units. Clinical sensitivity of the IgG ELISA test kit was estimated as ≥38.9%. Conclusion: We demonstrated the feasibility and simplicity of sentinel-based population survey in measuring variations in subnational and local data, useful for locally appropriate actions in different locations. The sentinel-based population survey thus helped identify districts that needed better testing, reporting, and clinical management. The state was far from attaining natural immunity during the survey and hence must step up vaccination coverage and enforce public health measures to prevent the spread of COVD-19.

Laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 involves the detection of viral nucleic acid, viral protein antigens, and the antibody response. Molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2 is the only diagnostic test currently available in acutely or recently infected individuals. In contrast, serological testing is typically performed once viral RNA has been cleared and symptoms have resolved. This leads to some confusion among clinicians as to which test to order and when each is appropriate. While SARS-CoV-2 assays can suffer from poor sensitivity, all FDA authorized assays to date are intended to be qualitative. Serological tests have multiple assay formats, detect various classes of immunoglobulins, and have a distinct role in seroprevalence studies; however, the association with long-term protection remains unclear. Both molecular and serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 have complementary roles in patient management, and we highlight the challenges faced by clinicians and laboratorians alike in the evaluation and interpretation of the currently available laboratory assays.

Clinical evaluation of four commercial immunoassays for the detection of antibodies against established SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A comparison of the clinical performance of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was performed. Patient sera were collected at least 6 weeks following onset of COVID-19 infection symptoms. Negative control specimens were stored specimens from those without COVID-19, collected in April-May 2019. Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Linear regression was used to examine the relationship between the magnitude of serological response and clinical characteristics. There were 80 patients from whom 86 sera specimens were collected; six patients had duplicate specimens. There were 95 negative control specimens from 95 patients. The clinical sensitivity of the Elecsys assay was 98.84% (95% CI 93.69-99.97), specificity was 100% (95% CI 96.19-100.00); the Liaison assay clinical sensitivity was 96.51% (95% CI 90.14-99.27), specificity was 97.89% (95% CI 92.60-99.74); the Access assay clinical sensitivity was 84.88% (95% CI 75.54-91.70), specificity was 98.95% (95% CI 94.27-99.97); and the Vitros assay clinical sensitivity was 97.67% (95% CI 91.85-99.72), specificity was 100% (95% CI 96.15-100.00). A requirement for hospitalisation for COVID-19 infection was associated with a larger Vitros, Liaison and Access IgG response whilst fever was associated with a larger Elecsys response. All assays evaluated with the exception of the Access assay demonstrated similar performance. The Elecsys assay demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity.

The clinical sensitivity of a single SARS-CoV-2 upper respiratory tract RT-PCR test for diagnosing COVID-19 using convalescent antibody as a comparator.

The clinical false negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a single upper respiratory tract sample was calculated using convalescent antibody testing as a comparator. The sensitivity in symptomatic individuals was 86.2% (25/29). Of the missed cases, one (3.5%) was detected by repeat RT-PCR, one by CT thorax and two (7.1%) by convalescent antibody. The clinical false negative rate of a single RT-PCR on an upper respiratory tract sample of 14% in symptomatic patients is reassuring when compared to early reports. This report supports a strategy of combining repeat swabbing, use of acute and convalescent antibody testing and CT thorax for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Molecular diagnostic technologies for COVID-19: Limitations and challenges.

BACKGROUND: To curb the spread of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, the world needs diagnostic systems capable of rapid detection and quantification of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Many biomedical companies are rising to the challenge and developing COVID-19 diagnostics. In the last few months, some of these diagnostics have become commercially available for healthcare workers and clinical laboratories. However, the diagnostic technologies have specific limitations and reported several false-positive and false-negative cases, especially during the early stages of infection. AIM: This article aims to review recent developments in the field of COVID-19 diagnostics based on molecular technologies and analyze their clinical performance data. KEY CONCEPTS: The literature survey and performance-based analysis of the commercial and pre-commercial molecular diagnostics address several questions and issues related to the limitations of current technologies and highlight future research and development challenges to enable timely, rapid, low-cost, and accurate diagnosis of emerging infectious diseases.