In silico detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific B-cell epitopes and validation in ELISA for serological diagnosis of COVID-19.

Rapid generation of diagnostics is paramount to understand epidemiology and to control the spread of emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Computational methods to predict serodiagnostic epitopes that are specific for the pathogen could help accelerate the development of new diagnostics. A systematic survey of 27 SARS-CoV-2 proteins was conducted to assess whether existing B-cell epitope prediction methods, combined with comprehensive mining of sequence databases and structural data, could predict whether a particular protein would be suitable for serodiagnosis. Nine of the predictions were validated with recombinant SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the ELISA format using plasma and sera from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and a further 11 predictions were compared to the recent literature. Results appeared to be in agreement with 12 of the predictions, in disagreement with 3, while a further 5 were deemed inconclusive. We showed that two of our top five candidates, the N-terminal fragment of the nucleoprotein and the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein, have the highest sensitivity and specificity and signal-to-noise ratio for detecting COVID-19 sera/plasma by ELISA. Mixing the two antigens together for coating ELISA plates led to a sensitivity of 94% (N = 80 samples from persons with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection), and a specificity of 97.2% (N = 106 control samples).

Development and application of sensitive, specific, and rapid CRISPR-Cas13-based diagnosis.

Nucleic acid detection is a necessary part of medical treatment and fieldwork. However, the current detection technologies are far from ideal. A lack of timely and accessible testing for identifying cases and close contacts has allowed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative virus of the ongoing coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to spread uncontrollably. The slow and expensive detection of mutations-predictors for chronic diseases such as cancer-form a barrier to personalized treatment. A recently developed diagnostic assay is ideal and field-ready-it relies on CRISPR-Cas13. CRISPR-Cas13 works similarly to other CRISPR systems: Cas13 is guided by a crRNA to cleave next to a specific RNA target sequence. Additionally, Cas13 boasts a unique collateral cleavage activity; collateral cleavage of a fluorescent reporter detects the presence of the target sequence in sample RNA. This system forms the basis of CRISPR-Cas13 diagnostic assays. CRISPR-Cas13 assays have >95% sensitivity and >99% specificity. Detection is rapid (<2 h), inexpensive ($0.05 per test), and portable-a test using lateral flow strips is akin to a pregnancy test. The recent adaptation of micro-well chips facilitates high-level multiplexing and is high-throughput. In this review, we cover the development of CRISPR-Cas13 assays for medical diagnosis, discuss the advantages of CRISPR-Cas13-based diagnosis over the traditional reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and present examples of detection from real patient samples.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Are Correlated to Disease Severity in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals.

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has had extreme consequences for the healthcare system and has led to calls for diagnostic tools to monitor and understand the transmission, pathogenesis, and epidemiology, as well as to evaluate future vaccination strategies. In this study, we have developed novel, to our knowledge, flexible ELISA-based assays for specific detection of human SARS-CoV-2 Abs against the receptor-binding domain, including an Ag sandwich ELISA relevant for large population screening and three isotype-specific assays for in-depth diagnostics. Their performance was evaluated in a cohort of 350 convalescent participants with previous COVID-19 infection, ranging from asymptomatic to critical cases. We mapped the Ab responses to different areas on protein N and S and showed that the IgM, A, and G Ab responses against receptor-binding domain are significantly correlated to the disease severity. These assays and the data generated from them are highly relevant for diagnostics and prognostics and contribute to the understanding of long-term COVID-19 immunity.

Serological assays and host antibody detection in coronavirus-related disease diagnosis.

Coronaviruses (CoV) are a family of viral pathogens that infect both birds and mammals, including humans. Seven human coronaviruses (HCoV) have been recognized so far. HCoV-229E, -OC43, -NL63, and -HKU1 account for one-third of common colds with mild symptoms. The other three members are severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. These viruses are responsible for SARS, MERS, and CoV disease 2019 (COVID-19), respectively. A variety of diagnostic techniques, including chest X-rays, computer tomography (CT) scans, analysis of viral nucleic acids, proteins, or whole virions, and host antibody detection using serological assays have been developed for the detection of these viruses. In this review, we discuss conventional serological tests, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), western blot (WB), immunofluorescence assay (IFA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA), as well as biosensor-based assays that have been developed for diagnosing HCoV-associated diseases since 2003, with an in-depth focus on COVID-19.

Fully automated detection and differentiation of pandemic and endemic coronaviruses (NL63, 229E, HKU1, OC43 and SARS-CoV-2) on the hologic panther fusion.

The hologic panther fusion (PF) platform provides fully automated CE marked diagnostics for respiratory viruses, including the recently discovered severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by a transcription mediated amplification (TMA) assay, but not for the endemic human coronaviruses (hCoV). Therefore, a laboratory developed test (LDT) comprising a multiplexed reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) protocol that detects and differentiates the four hCoV NL63, 229E, HKU1, and OC43 was adapted on the PF. The novel CE marked Aptima SARS-CoV-2 TMA and the LDT for hCoV were validated with 321 diagnostic specimens from the upper and lower respiratory tract in comparison to two SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs (PF E-gene RT-PCR and genesig RT-PCR, 157 specimens) or the R-GENE hCoV/hParaFlu RT-PCR (164 specimens), respectively. For the endemic hCoV, results were 96.3% concordant with two specimens discordantly positive in the PF and four specimens discordantly positive in the R-GENE assay. All discordantly positive samples had Ct values between 33 and 39. The PF hCoV LDT identified 23 hCoV positive specimens as NL63, 15 as 229E, 15 as HKU1, and 25 as OC43. The Aptima SARS-CoV-2 TMA gave 99.4% concordant results compared to the consensus results with a single specimen discordantly positive. Moreover, 36 samples from proficiency testing panels were detected and typed correctly by both novel methods. In conclusion, the SARS-CoV-2 TMA and the LDT for hCoV enhanced the diagnostic spectrum of the PF for all coronaviruses circulating globally for a multitude of diagnostic materials from the upper and lower respiratory tract.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Real-time RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis: challenges and prospects.

COVID-19 impacts global public health, economy, education, tourism/hospitality and sports; rapid and accurate testing of clinical samples dictate effective response. So far, the real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the assay of choice for COVID-19 diagnosis considering its rapidity and accuracy in informing on active coronavirus (CoV) infection. Presently, several RT-qPCR protocols with differing sensitivity/specificity are used for performing this assay; some of them are known to have generated debatable test results to constitute challenges worthy of consideration. This review provides a critical assessment of various published works on RT-qPCR assays used for COVID-19 diagnosis with their different indicators of positivity i.e., cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off values. Knowledge of diagnostic tests for COVID-19 is still evolving and, as a prospect, underscores the need for local validation of positive-negative Ct cut-off values when establishing RT-qPCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Are Correlated to Disease Severity in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals.

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic has had extreme consequences for the healthcare system and has led to calls for diagnostic tools to monitor and understand the transmission, pathogenesis, and epidemiology, as well as to evaluate future vaccination strategies. In this study, we have developed novel, to our knowledge, flexible ELISA-based assays for specific detection of human SARS-CoV-2 Abs against the receptor-binding domain, including an Ag sandwich ELISA relevant for large population screening and three isotype-specific assays for in-depth diagnostics. Their performance was evaluated in a cohort of 350 convalescent participants with previous COVID-19 infection, ranging from asymptomatic to critical cases. We mapped the Ab responses to different areas on protein N and S and showed that the IgM, A, and G Ab responses against receptor-binding domain are significantly correlated to the disease severity. These assays and the data generated from them are highly relevant for diagnostics and prognostics and contribute to the understanding of long-term COVID-19 immunity.

Rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection assay in comparison with real-time RT-PCR assay for laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread across the world. Hence, there is an urgent need for rapid, simple, and accurate tests to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Performance characteristics of the rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test should be evaluated and compared with the gold standard real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for diagnosis of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test, Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag kit (SD Biosensor®, Republic of Korea), was compared with the real-time RT-PCR test, Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay (Seegene®, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory specimens. Four hundred fifty-four respiratory samples (mainly nasopharyngeal and throat swabs) were obtained from COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals, including pre-operative patients at Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand during March-May 2020. RESULTS: Of 454 respiratory samples, 60 (13.2%) were positive, and 394 (86.8%) were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by real-time RT-PCR assay. The duration from onset to laboratory test in COVID-19 suspected cases and contact individuals ranged from 0 to 14 days with a median of 3 days. The rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test's sensitivity and specificity were 98.33% (95% CI, 91.06-99.96%) and 98.73% (95% CI, 97.06-99.59%), respectively. One false negative test result was from a sample with a high real-time RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct), while five false positive test results were from specimens of pre-operative patients. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid assay for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection showed comparable sensitivity and specificity with the real-time RT-PCR assay. Thus, there is a potential use of this rapid and simple SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection test as a screening assay.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response among Indian COVID-19 patients using ß-propiolactone-inactivated, whole virus-based indirect ELISA.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome - coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to affect many countries and large populations. Serologic assays for antibody detection aid patient diagnosis and seroepidemiologic investigations. METHODS: An indirect IgG ELISA was developed indigenously using ß-propiolactone (BPL) inactivated SARS-CoV-2. This assay was used for screening 200 healthy donor sera collected prior to COVID-19 emergence (2017-2019), 185 serum/plasma samples of confirmed COVID-19 patients (n = 137) and 57 samples of viral RNA positive asymptomatic contacts (n = 51). The IgG response was studied in relation to duration and severity of illness. RESULTS: The ELISA demonstrated 97 % specificity and IgG detection in >50 %, 80 %, 93.8 % and 100 % of the patients respectively during the first, second, third and fourth week of illness. IgG detection rate was higher in patients with severe disease (SD, 90.9 %) than those with mild disease (MD, 68.8 %) during the second week of illness (P = 0.027). IgG seropositivity among asymptomatic contacts was 64.7 %. IgG ELISA absorbance values were higher in SD than MD patients during the first 2 weeks of illness (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the absorbance values of asymptomatic subjects and MD patients (P = 0.94). CONCLUSION: The BPL inactivated virus-based ELISA could detect IgG antibodies early and in a significant proportion of COVID-19 patients suggesting its potential utility as a supplement to the currently used viral RNA detection tests in patient diagnosis and contact screening algorithms.

Emergent Carotid Artery Stenting Following Intravenous Alteplase Infusion After Rapid Negative Diagnosis for COVID-19 by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a rapid screening method for COVID-19 detection is needed to decide the appropriate strategy to treat stroke patients. In acute ischemic stroke treatment, the efficacy and safety of emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) for hyperacute ischemic stroke (hAIS) due to internal carotid artery stenosis (ICS) have not been sufficiently established. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 71-year-old man with hAIS caused by severe ICS was treated via intravenous alteplase infusion. The patient underwent screening for COVID-19 by the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay shortly after arrival at our institution. The LAMP result was obtained within 90 minutes, during intravenous alteplase infusion, and turned out to be negative. The symptom of hemiplegia worsened during alteplase infusion, and he, therefore, underwent eCAS after administration of aspirin (200 mg). Recanalization was achieved successfully by eCAS, and dual antiplatelet therapy and argatroban were administrated following eCAS. Hemorrhagic complications or restenosis/occlusion of the carotid artery were not observed. He was discharged without neurologic deficits 15 days following eCAS. Because of the rapid negative diagnosis for COVID-19 using the LAMP method, eCAS could be performed following standard procedures, along with infectious defense, without delay. CONCLUSIONS: This case report suggests that eCAS for hAIS due to ICS following intravenous alteplase can be an effective treatment, along with appropriate antiplatelet medication and management in select patients. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the LAMP assay for COVID-19 detection might be a suitable diagnostic strategy preceding stroke treatment because of the rapid turnaround time.

Seasonal incidence of respiratory viral infections in Telangana, India: utility of a multiplex PCR assay to bridge the knowledge gap.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTI) is a challenge due to overlapping clinical presentations and lack of availability of robust diagnostic methods. This in turn leads to lack of data regarding incidence and seasonality of viral RTIs which could potentially help to implement efficient strategies of antimicrobial stewardship as well as vaccine administration. Here we utilise a commercial Multiplex PCR assay for the early diagnosis of acute respiratory tract infections and discuss their epidemiology. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted over a period of 3 years (2017-2019). Respiratory samples received from outpatients and inpatients with suspected acute RTIs from three multispeciality hospitals located in the twin cities of Hyderabad-Secunderabad were subjected to FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA). Results were tabulated and statistically analysed. RESULTS: Of 513 samples, 261 (50.9%) were positive for one or more pathogens. The viruses detected included influenza A H1 2009 (26.0%), human rhinovirus/enterovirus (21.5%), influenza A H3N2 (17.0%), human metapneumovirus (9.4%), influenza B (6.6%), coronavirus (4.9%), parainfluenza virus (4.5%), respiratory syncytial virus (3.1%) and adenovirus (2.1%). The largest number of samples was positive during the monsoon season (43.8%). Influenza A H1 2009 peaked in the monsoon season with another, smaller peak in February. CONCLUSIONS: There is a bimodal peak of respiratory infections relative to the seasons, and vaccine administration should take place in April-May before the advent of the monsoons in this part of the country. Multiplexed PCR may be used as first line for diagnosis of viral infections so that infection control measures can be prioritised and antibiotic administration can be avoided in those who do not require it.

OBJECTIF: Le diagnostic des infections des voies respiratoires (IVR) virales aiguës est un défi en raison de la superposition des présentations cliniques et du manque de disponibilité de méthodes de diagnostic robustes. Cela conduit à son tour à un manque de données concernant l'incidence et la saisonnalité des IVR virales qui pourraient potentiellement aider à mettre en œuvre des stratégies efficaces de prise en charge antimicrobienne ainsi que l'administration des vaccins. Ici, nous utilisons un test PCR Multiplex commercial pour le diagnostic précoce des IVR aiguës et discutons de leur épidémiologie. MÉTHODES: Une étude prospective et observationnelle a été menée sur une période de 3 ans (2017-2019). Les échantillons respiratoires reçus de patients ambulatoires et hospitalisés avec suspicion d'IVR aiguë de 3 hôpitaux à multi spécialités situés dans les villes jumelles d'Hyderabad-Secunderabad ont été soumis au test FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) (BioFire Diagnostics, Inc.). Les résultats ont été compilés et analysés statistiquement. RÉSULTATS: Sur 513 échantillons, 261 (50,9%) étaient positifs pour un ou plusieurs agents pathogènes. Les virus détectés comprenaient Influenza A-H1 2009 (26,0 %), le rhinovirus/entérovirus humain (21,5% ), Influenza A-H3N2 (17,0%), le métapneumovirus humain (9,4 %), Influenza B (6,6 %), le coronavirus (4,9 %), le virus para-influenza (4,5 %), le virus respiratoire syncytial (3,1 %) et l'adénovirus (2,1 %). Le plus grand nombre d'échantillons était positif pendant la saison de la mousson (43,8%). Influenza A-H1 2009 a culminé pendant la saison de la mousson avec un autre pic moins élevé en février. CONCLUSIONS: Il existe un pic bimodal des infections respiratoires associé aux saisons, et l'administration du vaccin devrait avoir lieu en avril-mai avant l'avènement des moussons dans cette partie du pays. La PCR Multiplex peut être utilisée en première intention pour le diagnostic des infections virales afin que les mesures de contrôle des infections puissent être priorisées et que l'administration d'antibiotiques puisse être évitée chez ceux qui n'en ont pas besoin.

Diagnosis of COVID-19 using multiple antibody assays in two cases with negative PCR results from nasopharyngeal swabs.

We report of two cases of progressed COVID-19 with negative PCR tests from nasopharyngeal swabs, in whom diagnosis was made by different antibody assays, including a lateral flow rapid test and multiple commercial ELISAs, finally confirmed by comprehensive serological assays. These cases highlight that commercial ELISAs and even rapid tests might significantly aid the diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly, if a combination of serological assays is used with a specific clinical question, in severely ill patients after seroconversion and when comprehensive serological methods are used for confirmation.

Clinical application of Chemiluminescence Microparticle Immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The unsatisfactory accuracy and capacity of real time RT-PCR depends on several unavoidable reasons, which cannot meet the demands for COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: 206 serum samples were collected from patients who were treated in the General Hospital of the Central Theater Command of the PLA between January 18 and April 4, 2020. 270 serum samples from healthy blood donors were used as control. IgM and total antibodies (Ab) against SARS-CoV-2 were detected by Chemiluminescence Microparticle Immunoassay (CMIA). RESULTS: Among the 206 patients, the positive rate of IgM and Ab were 149/206 (72.3 %) and 187/206 (90.8 %), respectively. And the specificity of IgM and Ab detection were 99.3 % and 98.9 %, respectively. The sensitivity of CMIA for Ab detection was significantly higher than that of IgM. An increase of the positive rate and S/CO value for detecting IgM and Ab accompanied with the increasing of days post-disease onset (d.p.o.) were observed. The positive rate of Ab detected by CMIA increased rapidly after 7 d.p.o., while that of IgM was obviously increased after 14 d.p.o.. In addition, the age and gender of these patients did not affect the seroconversion and titer of antibodies during the whole course. The disease-severity of patients had no effect on the seroconversion of antibodies. However, the critical patients possessed a much higher antibody titers than the no-critical cases after 14 d.p.o.. CONCLUSIONS: The CMIA can provide important complementation to nucleic acid assay and help to enhance the accuracy and capacity of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Coronavirus Detection in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory: Are We Ready for Identifying and Diagnosing a Novel Virus?

Endemic species of coronavirus (HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1) are frequent causes of upper respiratory tract infections. Three highly pathogenic coronaviruses have been associated with outbreaks and epidemics and have challenged clinical microbiology laboratories to quickly develop assays for diagnosis. Their initial characterization was achieved by molecular methods. With the great advance in metagenomic whole-genome sequencing directly from clinical specimens, diagnosis of novel coronaviruses could be quickly implemented into the workflow of managing cases of pneumonia of unknown cause, which will markedly affect the time of the initial characterization and accelerate the initiation of outbreak control measures.

Evaluations of the serological test in the diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infections during the COVID-19 outbreak.

We developed a chemiluminescence immunoassay method based on the recombinant nucleocapsid antigen and assessed its performance for the clinical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 infections by detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in patients. Full-length recombinant nucleocapsid antigen and tosyl magnetic beads were used to develop the chemiluminescence immunoassay approach. Plasmas from 29 healthy cohorts, 51 tuberculosis patients, and 79 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients were employed to evaluate the chemiluminescence immunoassay method performance for the clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A commercial ELISA kit (Darui Biotech, China) using the same nucleocapsid antigen was used for the in-parallel comparison with our chemiluminescence immunoassay method. The IgM and IgG manner of testing in the chemiluminescence immunoassay method showed a sensitivity and specificity of 60.76% (95% CI 49.1 to 71.6) and 92.25% (95% CI 83.4 to 97.2) and 82.28% (95% CI 72.1 to 90.0) and 97.5% (95% CI 91.3 to 99.7), respectively. Higher sensitivity and specificity were observed in the chemiluminescence immunoassay method compared with the Darui Biotech ELISA kit. The developed high sensitivity and specificity chemiluminescence immunoassay IgG testing method combined with the RT-PCR approach can improve the clinical diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2 infections and thus contribute to the control of COVID-19 expansion.

Diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 detection: A comprehensive review of the FDA-EUA COVID-19 testing landscape.

The rapidly spreading outbreak of COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. As of June 17, 2020, this virus has infected over 8.2 million people but ranges in symptom severity, making it difficult to assess its overall infection rate. There is a need for rapid and accurate diagnostics to better monitor and prevent the spread of COVID-19. In this review, we present and evaluate two main types of diagnostics with FDA-EUA status for COVID-19: nucleic acid testing for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and serological assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG and IgM patient antibodies, along with the necessary sample preparation for accurate diagnoses. In particular, we cover and compare tests such as the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, Cellex's qSARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and point-of-care tests such as Abbott's ID NOW COVID-19 Test. Antibody testing is especially important in understanding the prevalence of the virus in the community and to identify those who have gained immunity. We conclude by highlighting the future of COVID-19 diagnostics, which include the need for quantitative testing and the development of emerging biosensors as point-of-care tests.

Diagnostic value of combined nucleic acid and antibody detection in suspected COVID-19 cases.

OBJECTIVES: Nucleic acid testing is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, large numbers of false-negative results have been reported. In this study, nucleic acid detection and antibody detection (IgG and IgM) were combined to improve the testing accuracy of patients with suspected COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: The positive rate of nucleic acid detection and antibody detection (IgG and IgM) were compared in suspected COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A total of 71 patients with suspected COVID-19 were selected to participate in this study, which included a retrospective analysis of clinical features, imaging examination, laboratory biochemical examination and nucleic acid detection and specific antibody (IgM and IgG) detection. RESULTS: The majority of participants with suspected COVID-19 presented with fever (67.61%) and cough (54.93%), and the imaging results showed multiple small patches and ground-glass opacity in both lungs, with less common infiltration and consolidation opacity (23.94%). Routine blood tests were mostly normal (69.01%), although only a few patients had lymphopenia (4.23%) or leucopenia (12.68%). There was no statistical difference in the double-positive rate between nucleic acid detection (46.48%) and specific antibody (IgG and IgM) detection (42.25%) (P = 0.612), both of which were also poorly consistent with each other (kappa = 0.231). The positive rate of combined nucleic acid detection and antibody detection (63.38%) was significantly increased, compared with that of nucleic acid detection (46.48%) and that of specific antibody (IgG and IgM) detection (42.25%), and the differences were statistically significant (P = 0.043 and P = 0.012, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Nucleic acid detection and specific antibody (IgG and IgM) detection had similar positive rates, and their combination could improve the positive rate of COVID-19 detection, which is of great significance for diagnosis and epidemic control.

Laboratory Assay Evaluation Demystified: A Review of Key Factors Influencing Interpretation of Test Results Using Different Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Diagnosis.

Laboratory tests are an integral part of the diagnosis and management of patients; however, these tests are far from perfect. Their imperfections can be due to patient health condition, specimen collection, and/or technological difficulty with performing the assay and/or interpretation. To be useful clinically, testing requires calculation of positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs). During the current global pandemic of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019), multiple assays with unknown clinical sensitivity and specificity have been rapidly developed to aid in the diagnosis of the disease. Due to a lack of surveillance testing, the prevalence of COVID-19 remains unknown. Hence, using this situation as an clinical example, the goal of this article is to clarify the key factors that influence the PPV and NPV yielded by diagnostic testing, By doing so, we hope to offer health-care providers information that will help them better understand the potential implications of utilizing these test results in clinical patient management.