Search

The world is entering a new era of the COVID-19 pandemic in which there is an increasing call for reliable antibody testing. To support decision making on the deployment of serology for either population screening or diagnostics, we present a detailed comparison of serological COVID-19 assays. We show that among the selected assays there is a wide diversity in assay performance in different scenarios and when correlated to virus neutralizing antibodies. The Wantai ELISA detecting total immunoglobulins against the receptor binding domain of SARS CoV-2, has the best overall characteristics to detect functional antibodies in different stages and severity of disease, including the potential to set a cut-off indicating the presence of protective antibodies. The large variety of available serological assays requires proper assay validation before deciding on deployment of assays for specific applications., SARS-CoV-2 is causing a global pandemic in which the implementation of serology can support decision making in different scenarios. Here, the authors compare the outcome of eight commercially available assays to virus neutralization and discuss their use in diagnostics and exposure assessment of SARS-CoV-2.

Background Performance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms. Method All eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: i, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks. Results We could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RT-PCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie Conclusion Overall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, especially for home/self-testing and in vulnerable populations like elderly, disabled or children where in intrusive testing is either not possible or causes unnecessary stress.

Highlights • Commercial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR analytical performance comparison. • Analytical sensitivity of 13 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs varied between 3.3–330 RNA copies. • All but 1 assay had sensitivity within one order of magnitude of the reference assay. • Only 1 assay cross reacted with another coronavirus (MERS)., The emergence of a new coronavirus in Wuhan China has triggered a global need for accurate diagnostic assays. Initially, mostly laboratory developed molecular tests were available but shortly thereafter different commercial assays started to appear and are still increasing in number. Although independent performance evaluations are ongoing, available data is still scarce. Here we provide a direct comparison of key performance characteristics of 13 commercial RT-PCR assays. Thirteen RT-PCR assays were selected based on the criteria that they can be used following generic RNA extraction protocols, on common PCR platforms and availability. Using a 10-fold and 2-fold dilution series of a quantified SARS-CoV-2 cell-cultured virus stock, performance was assessed compared to our in house validated assay. Specificity was tested by using RNA extracted from cultured common human coronaviruses. All RT-PCR kits included in this study exhibited PCR efficiencies > 90%, except for the Sentinel Diagnostics B E-gene RUO assay (80%). Analytical sensitivity varied between 3.3 RNA copies to 330 RNA copies. Only one assay cross reacted with another human coronavirus (MERS). This study provides a technical baseline of 13 different commercial PCR assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection that can be used by laboratories interested in purchasing any of these for further full clinical validation.

Background SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays are more sensitive than rapid antigen detection assays (RDT) and can detect viral RNA even after an individual is no longer infectious. RDT can reduce the time to test and the results might better correlate with infectiousness. Aim We assessed the ability of five RDT to identify infectious COVID-19 cases and systematically recorded the turnaround time of RT-PCR testing. Methods Sensitivity of RDT was determined using a serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 stock with known viral RNA concentration. The probability of detecting infectious virus at a given viral load was calculated using logistic regression of viral RNA concentration and matched culture results of 78 specimens from randomly selected non-hospitalised cases. The probability of each RDT to detect infectious cases was calculated as the sum of the projected probabilities for viral isolation success for every viral RNA load found at the time of diagnosis in 1,739 confirmed non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Results The distribution of quantification cycle values and estimated RNA loads for patients reporting to drive-through testing was skewed to high RNA loads. With the most sensitive RDT (Abbott and SD Biosensor), 97.30% (range: 88.65–99.77) of infectious individuals would be detected. This decreased to 92.73% (range: 60.30–99.77) for Coris BioConcept and GenBody, and 75.53% (range: 17.55–99.77) for RapiGEN. Only 32.9% of RT-PCR results were available on the same day as specimen collection. Conclusion The most sensitive RDT detected infectious COVID-19 cases with high sensitivity and may considerably improve containment through more rapid isolation and contact tracing.