AutoPlate: Rapid Dose-Response Curve Analysis for Biological Assays.

The emergence of COVID-19 has emphasised that biological assay data must be analysed quickly to develop safe, effective and timely vaccines/therapeutics. For viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the primary way of measuring immune correlates of protection is through assays such as the pseudotype microneutralisation (pMN) assay, thanks to its safety and versatility. However, despite the presence of existing tools for data analysis such as PRISM and R the analysis of these assays remains cumbersome and time-consuming. We introduce an open-source R Shiny web application and R library (AutoPlate) to accelerate data analysis of dose-response curve immunoassays. Using example data from influenza studies, we show that AutoPlate improves on available analysis software in terms of ease of use, flexibility and speed. AutoPlate (https://philpalmer.shinyapps.io/AutoPlate/) is a tool for the use of laboratories and wider scientific community to accelerate the analysis of biological assays in the development of viral vaccines and therapeutics.

Operational characteristics of 30 lateral flow immunoassays used to identify COVID-19 immune response.

Serology or antibody tests for COVID-19 are designed to detect antibodies (mainly Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) produced in response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) infection. In this study, 30 lateral flow immunoassays were tested using serum or plasma from patients with confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection. Negative serological controls were accessed from a well-characterised bank of sera which were stored prior to February 2020. Operational characteristics and ease of use of the assays are reported. 4/30 (13%) of kits (Zheihang Orient Gene COVID-19 IgG/IgM, Genrui Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) IgG/IgM, Biosynex COVID-19 BSS IgG/IgM, Boson Biotech 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM) were recommended for SAHPRA approval based on kit sensitivity. Of these, only the Orientgene was recommended by SAHPRA in August 2020 for use within the approved national testing algorithm while the remaining three received limited authorization for evaluation. All kits evaluated work on the same basic principle of immunochromatography with minor differences noted in the shape and colour of cartridges, the amount of specimen volume required and the test duration. Performance of the lateral flow tests were similar to sensitivities and specificities reported in other studies. The cassettes of the majority of kits evaluated (90%) detected both IgG and IgM. Only 23% of kits evaluated contained all consumables required for point-of-care testing. The study highlights the need for thorough investigation of kits prior to implementation.

Diagnostic Accuracy Estimates for COVID-19 Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction and Lateral Flow Immunoassay Tests With Bayesian Latent-Class Models.

Our objective was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), depending on the time after symptom onset. Based on the cross-classified results of RT-PCR and LFIA, we used Bayesian latent-class models, which do not require a gold standard for the evaluation of diagnostics. Data were extracted from studies that evaluated LFIA (immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or immunoglobulin M (IgM)) assays using RT-PCR as the reference method. The sensitivity of RT-PCR was 0.68 (95% probability interval (PrI): 0.63, 0.73). IgG/M sensitivity was 0.32 (95% PrI :0.23; 0.41) for the first week and increased steadily. It was 0.75 (95% PrI: 0.67; 0.83) and 0.93 (95% PrI: 0.88; 0.97) for the second and third weeks after symptom onset, respectively. Both tests had a high to absolute specificity, with higher point median estimates for RT-PCR specificity and narrower probability intervals. The specificity of RT-PCR was 0.99 (95% PrI: 0.98; 1.00). and the specificity of IgG/IgM was 0.97 (95% PrI: 0.92, 1.00), 0.98 (95% PrI: 0.95, 1.00) and 0.98 (95% PrI: 0.94, 1.00) for the first, second, and third weeks after symptom onset. The diagnostic accuracy of LFIA varies with time after symptom onset. Bayesian latent-class models provide a valid and efficient alternative for evaluating the rapidly evolving diagnostics for COVID-19, under various clinical settings and different risk profiles.

User experience analysis of AbC-19 Rapid Test via lateral flow immunoassays for self-administrated SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing.

Lateral flow immunoassays are low cost, rapid and highly efficacious point-of-care devices, which have been used for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing by professionals. However, there is a lack of understanding about how self-administered tests are used by the general public for mass testing in different environmental settings. The purpose of this study was to assess the user experience (UX) (including usability) of a self-testing kit to identify COVID-19 antibodies used by a representative sample of the public in their cars, which included 1544 participants in Northern Ireland. The results based on 5-point Likert ratings from a post-test questionnaire achieved an average UX score of 96.03% [95% confidence interval (CI) 95.05-97.01%], suggesting a good degree of user experience. The results of the Wilcoxon rank sum tests suggest that UX scores were independent of the user's age and education level although the confidence in this conclusion could be strengthened by including more participants aged younger than 18 and those with only primary or secondary education. The agreement between the test result as interpreted by the participant and the researcher was 95.85% [95% CI 94.85-96.85%], Kappa score 0.75 [95% CI 0.69-0.81] (indicating substantial agreement). Text analysis via the latent Dirichlet allocation model for the free text responses in the survey suggest that the user experience could be improved for blood-sample collection, by modifying the method of sample transfer to the test device and giving clearer instructions on how to interpret the test results. The overall findings provide an insight into the opportunities for improving the design of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing kits to be used by the general public and therefore inform protocols for future user experience studies of point-of-care tests.

Comparison of four high-throughput, automated immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

BACKGROUND: A number of immunoassays have been developed to measure antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2. More data is required on their comparability, particularly among those with milder infections and in the general practice population. The aim of this study was to compare four high-throughput automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays using samples collected from hospitalized patients and healthcare workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, we collected general practice samples to compare antibody results and determine seroprevalence. METHODS: Samples were collected from 57 hospitalized patients and nine healthcare workers at 14 days and at 28 days following confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Samples were also collected from 225 patients presenting to general practice. Four assays were used: Abbott Architect IgG, Beckman Coulter DxI 800 IgG, Roche Cobas e801 total antibody and Siemens Advia Centaur XPT total antibody. RESULTS: All four assays showed concordance at 14 days in 83.9% of hospitalized patients and in 66.7% of healthcare workers. All four assays showed concordance at 28 days in 88.4% of hospitalized patients and 77.8% of healthcare workers. The sensitivity to detect recent infection was higher for the IgG assays than the total assays. All four assays showed concordance of 95.1% in the general practice population. Seroprevalence ranged from 4.9 to 5.8% depending on the assay used. CONCLUSIONS: All four assays showed excellent comparability, but it may be possible to obtain a negative result for any of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in patients with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. An equivocal range would be useful for all anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays.

Potential Use of Antigen-Based Rapid Test for SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Specimens in Low-Resource Settings in Egypt for Symptomatic Patients and High-Risk Contacts.

OBJECTIVE: Because of the rapidly emerging SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and its wide public health challenges, rapid diagnosis is essential to decrease the spread. Antigen-based rapid detection tests are available; however, insufficient data about their performance are available. METHODS: The lateral-flow immunochromatographic BIOCREDIT COVID-19 antigen test was evaluated using nasopharyngeal swabs in a viral transport medium from patients with confirmed infection, contacts, and exposed healthcare professionals at Fayoum University Hospital in Egypt. Test performance was determined in comparison to the SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. RESULTS: Three hundred ten specimens from 3 categories-patients with confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19, contacts, and exposed healthcare professionals-were included; 188 specimens were RT-PCR-positive, from which 81 were detected by rapid antigen test. Overall sensitivity was 43.1%. Sensitivity was significantly higher in specimens with high viral loads. CONCLUSION: Poor sensitivity of the BIOCREDIT COVID-19 test does not permit its use for diagnosis, and it can only be used in conjunction with RT-PCR for screening.

A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2.

Preexisting cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 occurs in the absence of prior viral exposure. However, this has been difficult to quantify at the population level due to a lack of reliably defined seroreactivity thresholds. Using an orthogonal antibody testing approach, we estimated that about 0.6% of nontriaged adults from the greater Vancouver, Canada, area between May 17 and June 19, 2020, showed clear evidence of a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, after adjusting for false-positive and false-negative test results. Using a highly sensitive multiplex assay and positive/negative thresholds established in infants in whom maternal antibodies have waned, we determined that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2. This seroreactivity was evenly distributed across age and sex, correlated with circulating coronaviruses' reactivity, and was partially outcompeted by soluble circulating coronaviruses' spike. Using a custom SARS-CoV-2 peptide mapping array, we found that this antibody reactivity broadly mapped to spike and to conserved nonstructural viral proteins. We conclude that most adults display preexisting antibody cross-reactivity against SARS-CoV-2, which further supports investigation of how this may impact the clinical severity of COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses.

Probable causes and risk factors for positive SARS-CoV-2 test in recovered patients: Evidence from Brunei Darussalam.

Case reports of patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) who have been discharged and subsequently report positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction again (hereafter referred as "re-positive") do not fully describe the magnitude and significance of this issue. To determine the re-positive rate (proportion) and review probable causes and outcomes, we conduct a retrospective study of all 119 discharged patients in Brunei Darussalam up till April 23. Patients who were discharged are required to self-isolate at home for 14 days and undergo nasopharyngeal specimen collection postdischarge. Discharged patients found to be re-positive were readmitted. We reviewed the clinical and epidemiological records of all discharged patients and apply log-binomial models to obtain risk ratios for re-positive status. One in five recovered patients subsequently test positive again for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-this risk is more than six times higher in persons aged 60 years and above. The average Ct value of re-positive patients was lower predischarge compared with their readmission Ct value. Out of 111 close contacts tested, none were found to be positive as a result of exposure to a re-positive patient. Our findings support prolonged but intermittent viral shedding as the probable cause for this phenomenon. We did not observe infectivity potential in these patients.

Clinical Evaluation of Self-Collected Saliva by Quantitative Reverse Transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR), Direct RT-qPCR, Reverse Transcription-Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification, and a Rapid Antigen Test To Diagnose COVID-19.

The clinical performances of six molecular diagnostic tests and a rapid antigen test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were clinically evaluated for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in self-collected saliva. Saliva samples from 103 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (15 asymptomatic and 88 symptomatic) were collected on the day of hospital admission. SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva was detected using a quantitative reverse transcription-PCR (RT-qPCR) laboratory-developed test (LDT), a cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, three direct RT-qPCR kits, and reverse transcription-loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP). The viral antigen was detected by a rapid antigen immunochromatographic assay. Of the 103 samples, viral RNA was detected in 50.5 to 81.6% of the specimens by molecular diagnostic tests, and an antigen was detected in 11.7% of the specimens by the rapid antigen test. Viral RNA was detected at significantly higher percentages (65.6 to 93.4%) in specimens collected within 9 days of symptom onset than in specimens collected after at least 10 days of symptoms (22.2 to 66.7%) and in specimens collected from asymptomatic patients (40.0 to 66.7%). Self-collected saliva is an alternative specimen option for diagnosing COVID-19. The RT-qPCR LDT, a cobas SARS-CoV-2 high-throughput system, direct RT-qPCR kits (except for one commercial kit), and RT-LAMP showed sufficient sensitivities in clinical use to be selectively used in clinical settings and facilities. The rapid antigen test alone is not recommended for an initial COVID-19 diagnosis because of its low sensitivity.

Association between SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies and Commercial Serological Assays.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays based on different viral antigens have been approved for the qualitative determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, there are limited published data associating the results from commercial assays with neutralizing antibodies. METHODS: Sixty-six specimens from 48 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and a positive result by the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, or EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays and 5 control specimens were analyzed for the presence of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Correlation, concordance, positive percent agreement (PPA), and negative percent agreement (NPA) were calculated at several cutoffs. Results were compared in patients categorized by clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The correlation between SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer (EC50) and the Roche, Abbott, and EUROIMMUN assays was 0.29, 0.47, and 0.46, respectively. At an EC50 of 1:32, the concordance kappa with Roche was 0.49 (95% CI; 0.23-0.75), with Abbott was 0.52 (0.28-0.77), and with EUROIMMUN was 0.61 (0.4-0.82). At the same neutralizing titer, the PPA and NPA for the Roche was 100% (94-100) and 56% (30-80); Abbott was 96% (88-99) and 69% (44-86); and EUROIMMUN was 91% (80-96) and 81% (57-93) for distinguishing neutralizing antibodies. Patients who were intubated, had cardiac injury, or acute kidney injury from COVID-19 infection had higher neutralizing titers relative to those with mild symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients generate an antibody response to multiple viral proteins such that the calibrator ratios on the Roche, Abbott, and EUROIMMUN assays are all associated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization. Nevertheless, commercial serological assays have poor NPA for SARS-CoV-2 neutralization, making them imperfect proxies for neutralization.

Point-of-care serological assays for delayed SARS-CoV-2 case identification among health-care workers in the UK: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care workers constitute a high-risk population for acquisition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Capacity for acute diagnosis via PCR testing was limited for individuals with mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and a substantial proportion of health-care workers with suspected infection were not tested. We aimed to investigate the performance of point-of-care and laboratory serology assays and their utility in late case identification, and to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. METHODS: We did a prospective multicentre cohort study between April 8 and June 12, 2020, in two phases. Symptomatic health-care workers with mild to moderate symptoms were eligible to participate 14 days after onset of COVID-19 symptoms, as per the Public Health England (PHE) case definition. Health-care workers were recruited to the asymptomatic cohort if they had not developed PHE-defined COVID-19 symptoms since Dec 1, 2019. In phase 1, two point-of-care lateral flow serological assays, the Onsite CTK Biotech COVID-19 split IgG/IgM Rapid Test (CTK Bitotech, Poway, CA, USA) and the Encode SARS-CoV-2 split IgM/IgG One Step Rapid Test Device (Zhuhai Encode Medical Engineering, Zhuhai, China), were evaluated for performance against a laboratory immunoassay (EDI Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 IgG ELISA kit [Epitope Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA]) in 300 samples from health-care workers and 100 pre-COVID-19 negative control samples. In phase 2 (n=6440), serosurveillance was done among 1299 (93·4%) of 1391 health-care workers reporting symptoms, and in a subset of asymptomatic health-care workers (405 [8·0%] of 5049). FINDINGS: There was variation in test performance between the lateral flow serological assays; however, the Encode assay displayed reasonable IgG sensitivity (127 of 136; 93·4% [95% CI 87·8-96·9]) and specificity (99 of 100; 99·0% [94·6-100·0]) among PCR-proven cases and good agreement (282 of 300; 94·0% [91·3-96·7]) with the laboratory immunoassay. By contrast, the Onsite assay had reduced sensitivity (120 of 136; 88·2% [95% CI 81·6-93·1]) and specificity (94 of 100; 94·0% [87·4-97·8]) and agreement (254 of 300; 84·7% [80·6-88·7]). Five (7%) of 70 PCR-positive cases were negative across all assays. Late changes in lateral flow serological assay bands were recorded in 74 (9·3%) of 800 cassettes (35 [8·8%] of 400 Encode assays; 39 [9·8%] of 400 Onsite assays), but only seven (all Onsite assays) of these changes were concordant with the laboratory immunoassay. In phase 2, seroprevalence among the workforce was estimated to be 10·6% (95% CI 7·6-13·6) in asymptomatic health-care workers and 44·7% (42·0-47·4) in symptomatic health-care workers. Seroprevalence across the entire workforce was estimated at 18·0% (95% CI 17·0-18·9). INTERPRETATION: Although a good positive predictive value was observed with both lateral flow serological assays and ELISA, this agreement only occurred if the pre-test probability was modified by a strict clinical case definition. Late development of lateral flow serological assay bands would preclude postal strategies and potentially home testing. Identification of false-negative results among health-care workers across all assays suggest caution in interpretation of IgG results at this stage; for now, testing is perhaps best delivered in a clinical setting, supported by government advice about physical distancing. FUNDING: None.