Evaluation of serological lateral flow assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2

BackgroundCOVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Lateral flow assays can detect anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies to monitor transmission. However, standardized evaluation of their accuracy and tools to aid in interpreting results are needed. MethodsWe evaluated 20 IgG and IgM assays selected from available tests in April 2020. We evaluated the assays performance using 56 pre-pandemic negative and 56 SARS-CoV-2-positive plasma samples, collected 10-40 days after symptom onset, confirmed by a molecular test and analyzed by an ultra-sensitive immunoassay. Finally, we developed a user-friendly web app to extrapolate the positive predictive values based on their accuracy and local prevalence. ResultsCombined IgG+IgM sensitivities ranged from 33.9% to 94.6%, while combined specificities ranged from 92.6% to 100%. The highest sensitivities were detected in Lumiquick for IgG (98.2%), BioHit for both IgM (96.4%), and combined IgG+IgM sensitivity (94.6%). Furthermore, 11 LFAs and 8 LFAs showed perfect specificity for IgG and IgM, respectively, with 15 LFAs showing perfect combined IgG+IgM specificity. Lumiquick had the lowest estimated limit-of-detection (LOD) (0.1 g/mL), followed by a similar LOD of 1.5 g/mL for CareHealth, Cellex, KHB, and Vivachek. ConclusionWe provide a public resource of the accuracy of select lateral flow assays with potential for home testing. The cost-effectiveness, scalable manufacturing process, and suitability for self-testing makes LFAs an attractive option for monitoring disease prevalence and assessing vaccine responsiveness. Our web tool provides an easy-to-use interface to demonstrate the impact of prevalence and test accuracy on the positive predictive values.

Clinical Electroencephalography Findings and Considerations in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

Background and PurposeReports have suggested that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes neurologic manifestations including encephalopathy and seizures. However, there has been relatively limited electrophysiology data to contextualize these specific concerns and to understand their associated clinical factors. Our objective was to identify EEG abnormalities present in patients with SARS-CoV-2, and to determine whether they reflect new or preexisting brain pathology. MethodsWe studied a consecutive series of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 who received an EEG, obtained using tailored safety protocols. Data from EEG reports and clinical records were analyzed to identify EEG abnormalities and possible clinical associations, including neurologic symptoms, new or preexisting brain pathology, and sedation practices. ResultsWe identified 37 patients with SARS-CoV-2 who underwent EEG, of whom 14 had epileptiform findings (38%). Patients with epileptiform findings were more likely to have preexisting brain pathology (6/14, 43%) than patients without epileptiform findings (2/23, 9%; p=0.042). There were no clear differences in rates of acute brain pathology. One case of nonconvulsive status epilepticus was captured, but was not clearly a direct consequence of SARS-CoV-2. Abnormalities of background rhythms were common, and patients recently sedated were more likely to lack a posterior dominant rhythm (p=0.022). ConclusionsEpileptiform abnormalities were common in patients with SARS-CoV-2 referred for EEG, but particularly in the context of preexisting brain pathology and sedation. These findings suggest that neurologic manifestations during SARS-CoV-2 infection may not solely relate to the infection itself, but rather may also reflect patients broader, preexisting neurologic vulnerabilities.

COVID-19 Outpatient Screening: a Prediction Score for Adverse Events

BackgroundWe sought to develop an automatable score to predict hospitalization, critical illness, or death in patients at risk for COVID-19 presenting for urgent care during the Massachusetts outbreak. MethodsSingle-center study of adult outpatients seen in respiratory illness clinics (RICs) or the emergency department (ED), including development (n = 9381, March 7-May 2) and prospective (n = 2205, May 3-14) cohorts. Data was queried from Partners Enterprise Data Warehouse. Outcomes were hospitalization, critical illness or death within 7 days. We developed the COVID-19 Acuity Score (CoVA) using automatically extracted data from the electronic medical record and learning-to-rank ordinal logistic regression modeling. Calibration was assessed using predicted-to-observed ratio (E/O). Discrimination was assessed by C-statistics (AUC). ResultsIn the development cohort, 27.3%, 7.2%, and 1.1% of patients experienced hospitalization, critical illness, or death, respectively; and in the prospective cohort, 26.1%, 6.3%, and 0.5%. CoVA showed excellent performance in the development cohort (concurrent validation) for hospitalization (E/O: 1.00, AUC: 0.80); for critical illness (E/O: 1.00, AUC: 0.82); and for death (E/O: 1.00, AUC: 0.87). Performance in the prospective cohort (prospective validation) was similar for hospitalization (E/O: 1.01, AUC: 0.76); for critical illness (E/O 1.03, AUC: 0.79); and for death (E/O: 1.63, AUC=0.93). Among 30 predictors, the top five were age, diastolic blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation, COVID-19 testing status, and respiratory rate. ConclusionsCoVA is a prospectively validated automatable score to assessing risk for adverse outcomes related to COVID-19 infection in the outpatient setting.