Scalable RT-LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 testing for infection surveillance with applications in pandemic preparedness.

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, limited diagnostic capacities prevented sentinel testing, demonstrating the need for novel testing infrastructures. Here, we describe the setup of a cost-effective platform that can be employed in a high-throughput manner, which allows surveillance testing as an acute pandemic control and preparedness tool, exemplified by SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in an academic environment. The strategy involves self-sampling based on gargling saline, pseudonymized sample handling, automated RNA extraction, and viral RNA detection using a semiquantitative multiplexed colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay with an analytical sensitivity comparable with RT-qPCR. We provide standard operating procedures and an integrated software solution for all workflows, including sample logistics, analysis by colorimetry or sequencing, and communication of results. We evaluated factors affecting the viral load and the stability of gargling samples as well as the diagnostic sensitivity of the RT-LAMP assay. In parallel, we estimated the economic costs of setting up and running the test station. We performed > 35,000 tests, with an average turnover time of < 6 h from sample arrival to result announcement. Altogether, our work provides a blueprint for fast, sensitive, scalable, cost- and labor-efficient RT-LAMP diagnostics, which is independent of potentially limiting clinical diagnostics supply chains.

Evaluation of the EDI enzyme linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in human plasma.

BACKGROUND: Besides SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, serological testing is emerging as additional option in COVID-19 diagnostics. Aim of this study was to evaluate novel immunoassays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human plasma. METHODS: Using EDITM Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs), we measured SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in 64 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with serial blood samples (n = 104) collected at different time points from symptom onset. Blood samples from 200 healthy blood donors and 256 intensive care unit (ICU) patients collected before the COVID-19 outbreak were also used. RESULTS: The positivity rates in the COVID-19 patients were 5.9% for IgM and 2.9% for IgG ≤ 5 days after symptom onset; Between day 5 and day 10 the positivity rates were 37.1% for IgM and 37.1% for IgG and rose to 76.4% for IgM and 82.4% for IgG after > 10-15 days. After 15-22 days the "true" positivity rates were 94.4% for IgM and 100% for IgG. The "false" positivity rates were 0.5% for IgM and 1.0% for IgG in the healthy blood donors, 1.6% for IgM and 1.2% for IgG in ICU patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows high "true" vs. low "false" positivity rates for the EDITM SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG ELISAs.

Comparison of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay with the EDI™ enzyme linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human plasma.

BACKGROUND: Here, we report on a head-to-head comparison of the fully-automated Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay with the EDITM enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human plasma. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were measured with the Elecsys® assay and the EDITM ELISAs (IgM and IgG) in 64 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with serial blood samples (n = 104) collected at different time points from symptom onset. Blood samples from 200 healthy blood donors and 256 intensive care unit (ICU) patients collected before the COVID-19 outbreak were also used. RESULTS: In COVID-19 patients, the percentage of positive results rose with time from symptom onset, peaking to positivity rates after 15-22 days of 100% for the Elecsys® assay, of 94% for the EDITM IgM-ELISA and of 100% for the EDITM IgG ELISA. In the 104 blood samples, the agreement between positive/negative classifications of the Elecsys® assay and the EDITM ELISAs (IgM or IgG) was 90%. The false positivity rates in the healthy blood donors and the ICU patients were < 1% for the Elecsys® assay and < 3% for the EDITM ELISAs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate a high sensitivity and specificity for the Elecsys® assay and an acceptable agreement with the EDITM ELISAs.