Diagnostic performance of four lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population.

Serological assays have been used in seroprevalence studies to inform the dynamics of COVID-19. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests are a very practical technology to use for this objective; however, one of their challenges may be variable diagnostic performance. Given the numerous available LFIA tests, evaluation of their accuracy is critical before real-world implementation. We performed a retrospective diagnostic evaluation study to independently determine the diagnostic accuracy of 4 different antibody-detection LFIA tests: Now Check (Bionote), CareStart (Access bio), Covid-19 BSS (Biosynex) and OnSite (CTK Biotech). The sample panel was comprised of specimens collected and stored in biobanks; specifically, specimens that were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 collected at various times throughout the COVID-19 disease course and those that were collected before the pandemic, during 2018 or earlier, from individuals with upper respiratory symptoms but were negative for tuberculosis. Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was analyzed overall, and subset across individual antibody isotypes, and days from symptoms onset. A very high specificity (98% - 100%) was found for all four tests. Overall sensitivity was variable, ranging from 29% [95% CI: 21%-39%] to 64% [95% CI: 54%-73%]. When considering detection of IgM only, the highest sensitivity was 42% [95% CI: 32%-52%], compared to 57% [95% CI: 47%-66%] for IgG only. When the analysis was restricted to at least 15 days since symptom onset, across any isotype, the sensitivity reached 90% for all four brands. All four LFIA tests proved effective for identifying COVID-19 antibodies when two conditions were met: 1) at least 15 days have elapsed since symptom onset and 2) a sample is considered positive when either IgM or IgG is present. With these considerations, the use of this assays could help in seroprevalence studies or further exploration of its potential uses.

Integrating tuberculosis and COVID-19 molecular testing in Lima, Peru: a cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated molecular testing could be an opportunity to detect and provide care for both tuberculosis and COVID-19. Many high tuberculosis burden countries, such as Peru, have existing GeneXpert systems for tuberculosis testing with GeneXpert Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), and a GeneXpert SARS-CoV-2 assay, GeneXpert Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 (Xpert Xpress), is also available. We aimed to assess the feasibility of integrating tuberculosis and COVID-19 testing using one sputum specimen with Xpert Ultra and Xpert Xpress in Lima, Peru. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited adults presenting with clinical symptoms or suggestive history of tuberculosis or COVID-19, or both. Participants were recruited from a total of 35 primary health facilities in Lima, Peru. Participants provided one nasopharyngeal swab and one sputum sample. For COVID-19, we tested nasopharyngeal swabs and sputum using Xpert Xpress; for tuberculosis, we tested sputum using culture and Xpert Ultra. We compared diagnostic accuracy of sputum testing using Xpert Xpress with nasopharyngeal swab testing using Xpert Xpress. Individuals with positive Xpert Xpress nasopharyngeal swab results were considered COVID-19 positive, and a positive culture indicated tuberculosis. To assess testing integration, the proportion of cases identified in sputum by Xpert Xpress was compared with Xpert Xpress on nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum by Xpert Ultra was compared with culture. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2021, and April 26, 2022, we recruited 600 participants (312 [52%] women and 288 [48%] men). In-study prevalence of tuberculosis was 13% (80 participants, 95% CI 11-16) and of SARS-CoV-2 was 35% (212 participants, 32-39). Among tuberculosis cases, 13 (2·2%, 1·2-3·7) participants were concurrently positive for SARS-CoV-2. Regarding the diagnostic yield of integrated testing, Xpert Ultra detected 96% (89-99) of culture-confirmed tuberculosis cases (n=77), and Xpert Xpress-sputum detected 67% (60-73) of COVID-19 cases (n=134). All five study staff reported that integrated molecular testing was easy and acceptable. INTERPRETATION: The diagnostic yield of Xpert Xpress on sputum was moderate, but integrated testing for tuberculosis and COVID-19 with GeneXpert was feasible. However, systematic testing for both diseases might not be the ideal approach for everyone presenting with presumptive tuberculosis or COVID-19, as concurrent positive cases were rare during the study period. Further research might help to identify when integrated testing is most worthwhile and its optimal implementation. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and International Development Research Centre. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Diagnostic performance of GENEDIA W and ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 antigens tests among symptomatic individuals in Peru and The United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: In order to generate independent performance data regarding accuracy of COVID-19 antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), prospective diagnostic evaluation studies across multiple sites are required to evaluate their performance in different clinical settings. This report describes the clinical evaluation the GENEDIA W COVID-19 Ag Device (Green Cross Medical Science Corp., Chungbuk, Korea) and the ActiveXpress+ COVID-19 Complete Testing Kit (Edinburgh Genetics Ltd, UK), in two testing sites Peru and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 456 symptomatic patients at primary points of care in Lima, Peru and 610 symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 Drive-Through testing site in Liverpool, England were analyzed by Ag-RDT and compared to RT-PCR. Analytical evaluation of both Ag-RDTs was assessed using serial dilutions of direct culture supernatant of a clinical SARS-CoV-2 isolate from the B.1.1.7 lineage. RESULTS: For GENEDIA brand, the values of overall sensitivity and specificity were 60.4% [95% CI 52.4-67.9%], and 99.2% [95% CI 97.6-99.7%] respectively; and for Active Xpress+ the overall values of sensitivity and specificity were 66.2% [95% CI 54.0-76.5%], and 99.6% [95% CI 97.9-99.9%] respectively. The analytical limit of detection was determined at 5.0 x 102 pfu/ml what equals to approximately 1.0 x 104 gcn/ml for both Ag-RDTs. The UK cohort had lower median Ct values compared to that of Peru during both evaluations. When split by Ct, both Ag-RDTs had optimum sensitivities at Ct<20 (in Peru; 95% [95% CI 76.4-99.1%] and 100.0% [95% CI 74.1-100.0%] and in the UK; 59.2% [95% CI 44.2-73.0%] and 100.0% [95% CI 15.8-100.0%], for the GENDIA and the ActiveXpress+, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the overall clinical sensitivity of the Genedia did not meet WHO minimum performance requirements for rapid immunoassays in either cohort, the ActiveXpress+ did so for the small UK cohort. This study illustrates comparative performance of Ag-RDTs across two global settings and considers the different approaches in evaluation methods.

Integrated testing for TB and COVID-19.

Integrated testing for TB and COVID-19 may help find those TB patients who are not accessing care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some molecular platforms with assays for both diseases are already commercially available; however, integrated testing approaches need to be systematically evaluated to ensure their appropriate implementation.