RESUMEN
Cancer patients are at high risk of severe COVID-19 with high morbidity and mortality. Further, impaired humoral response renders SARS-CoV-2 vaccines less effective and treatment options are scarce. Randomized trials using convalescent plasma are missing for high-risk patients. Here, we performed a multicenter trial (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001632-10/DE) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 within four risk groups (1, cancer; 2, immunosuppression; 3, lab-based risk factors; 4, advanced age) randomized to standard of care (CONTROL) or standard of care plus convalescent/vaccinated anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma (PLASMA). For the four groups combined, PLASMA did not improve clinically compared to CONTROL (HR 1.29; p=0.205). However, cancer patients experienced shortened median time to improvement (HR 2.50, p=0.003) and superior survival in PLASMA vs. CONTROL (HR 0.28; p=0.042). Neutralizing antibody activity increased in PLASMA but not in CONTROL cancer patients (p=0.001). Taken together, convalescent/vaccinated plasma may improve COVID-19 outcome in cancer patients unable to intrinsically generate an adequate immune response.
RESUMEN
Throughout the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, limited diagnostic testing capacity prevented sentinel testing of the population, demonstrating the need for novel testing strategies and infrastructures. Here, we describe the set-up of an alternative testing platform, which allows scalable surveillance testing as an acute pandemic response tool and for pandemic preparedness purposes, exemplified by SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in an academic environment. The testing strategy involves self-sampling based on gargling saline, pseudonymized sample handling, automated 96-well plate-based RNA extraction, and viral RNA detection using a semi-quantitative multiplexed colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay with an analytical sensitivity comparable to RT-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). We provide standard operating procedures and an integrated software solution for all workflows, including sample logistics, LAMP assay analysis by colorimetry or by sequencing (LAMP-seq), and communication of results to participants and the health authorities. Using large sample sets including longitudinal sample series we evaluated factors affecting the viral load and the stability of gargling samples as well as the diagnostic sensitivity of the RT-LAMP assay. We performed >35,000 tests during the pandemic, with an average turnover time of fewer than 6 hours from sample arrival at the test station to result announcement. Altogether, our work provides a blueprint for fast, sensitive, scalable, cost- and labor-efficient RT-LAMP diagnostics. As RT-LAMP-based testing requires advanced, but non-specialized laboratory equipment, it is independent of potentially limiting clinical diagnostics supply chains. One-sentence summaryA blueprint for scalable RT-LAMP test capacity for the sensitive detection of viral genomes demonstrated by SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.
RESUMEN
BackgroundCurrently, more than 500 different AgPOCTs for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics are on sale (July 2021), for many of which no data about sensitivity other than self-acclaimed values by the manufacturers are available. In many cases these do not reflect real-life diagnostic sensitivities. Therefore, manufacturer-independent quality checks of available AgPOCTs are needed, given the potential implications of false-negative results. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a scalable approach for direct comparison of the analytical sensitivities of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen point-of-care tests (AgPOCTs) in order to rapidly identify poor performing products. MethodsWe present a methodology for quick assessment of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow test stripes suitable for quality evaluation of many different products. We established reference samples with high, medium and low SARS-CoV-2 viral loads along with a SARS-CoV-2 negative control sample. Test samples were used to semi-quantitatively assess the analytical sensitivities of 32 different commercial AgPOCTs in a head-to-head comparison. ResultsAmong 32 SARS-CoV-2 AgPOCTs tested, we observe sensitivity differences across a broad range of viral loads ([~]7.0*108 to [~]1.7*105 SARS-CoV-2 genome copies per ml). 23 AgPOCTs detected the Ct25 test sample ([~]1.4*106 copies/ ml), while only five tests detected the Ct28 test sample ([~]1.7*105 copies/ ml). In the low range of analytical sensitivity we found three saliva spit tests only delivering positive results for the Ct21 sample ([~]2.2*107 copies/ ml). Comparison with published data support our AgPOCT ranking. Importantly, we identified an AgPOCT offered in many local drugstores and supermarkets, which did not reliably recognize the sample with highest viral load (Ct16 test sample with [~]7.0*108 copies/ ml) leading to serious doubts in its usefulness in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. ConclusionThe rapid sensitivity assessment procedure presented here provides useful estimations on the analytical sensitivities of 32 AgPOCTs and identified a widely-spread AgPOCT with concerningly low sensitivity.
RESUMEN
Virus mutations have the potential to impact the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage is defined by a large number of mutations in the spike gene and four in the nucleocapsid (N) gene. Most commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests (Ag-RDTs) target the viral N-protein, encoded by the N-gene. We conducted a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs that are currently under review by the WHO Emergency Use Listing Procedure (Espline -Fujirebio Inc.; Sure Status -Premier Medical Corporation Private Limited; Mologic -Mologic Ltd.) and report here on an additional sub-analysis regarding the B.1.1.7 lineage. During the study, in Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany, from 20 January to 15 April 2021, B.1.1.7 rapidly became the dominant SARS-CoV-2 lineage at the testing sites and was detected in 220 (62%) of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive patients. All three Ag-RDTs yielded comparable sensitivities irrespective of an infection with the B.1.1.7 lineage or not. There is only limited data on how N-gene mutations in variants of concern may impact Ag-RDTs. Currently, no major changes to test performance are anticipated. However, test developers and health authorities should assess and monitor the impact of emerging variants on the accuracy of Ag-RDTs.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo assess the performance of antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS CoV-2 when implemented for large-scale universal screening of asymptomatic individuals. MethodsThis study presents data from a pragmatic implementation study for universal Ag-RDT-based screening at a tertiary care hospital in Germany where all incoming patients without symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 were screened with an Ag-RDT prior to admission since October 2020. ResultIn total, 49,542 RDTs were performed in 27,199 asymptomatic individuals over a duration of five months. Out of 222 positive results, 196 underwent in-house confirmatory testing with PCR, out of which 170 were confirmed positive, indicating a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86.7%. Negative Ag-RDTs were not routinely tested with PCR, but a total of 94 cases of false negative Ag-RDTs were detected due to PCR tests being performed within the following five days with a median CT-value of 33. ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that Ag-RDTs can have a high diagnostic yield for transmission relevant infections with limited false-positives when utilized at the point of care on asymptomatic patients and thus can be a suitable public-health test for universal screening.
RESUMEN
Variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are replacing the initial wild-type strain, jeopardizing current efforts to contain the pandemic. Amino acid exchanges in the spike protein are of particular concern as they can render the virus more transmissible or reduce vaccine efficacy. Here, we conducted whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 positive samples from the Rhine-Neckar district in Germany during January-March 2021. We detected a total of 166 samples positive for a variant with a distinct mutational pattern in the spike gene comprising L18F, L452R, N501Y, A653V, H655Y, D796Y and G1219V with a later gain of A222V. This variant was designated A.27.RN according to its phylogenetic clade classification. It emerged in parallel with the B.1.1.7 variant, increased to >50% of all SARS-CoV-2 variants by week five. Subsequently it decreased to <10% of all variants by calendar week eight when B.1.1.7 had become the dominant strain. Antibodies induced by BNT162b2 vaccination neutralized A.27.RN but with a two-to-threefold reduced efficacy as compared to the wild-type and B.1.1.7 strains. These observations strongly argue for continuous and comprehensive monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 evolution on a population level.
RESUMEN
BackgroundIn 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended two SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen detecting rapid diagnostics tests (Ag-RDTs), both initially with nasopharyngeal (NP) sample collection. Independent head-to-head studies demonstrated for SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs nasal sampling to be a comparable and reliable alternative for nasopharyngeal (NP) sampling. MethodsWe conducted a head-to-head comparison study of a supervised, self-collected nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) swab and a professional-collected NP swab, using the Panbio Ag-RDT (the second WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT, distributed by Abbott). We calculated positive and negative percent agreement and, compared to the reference standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), sensitivity and specificity for both sampling techniques. ResultsA SARS-CoV-2 infection could be diagnosed by RT-PCR in 45 of 290 participants (15.5%). Comparing the NMT and NP sampling the positive percent agreement of the Ag-RDT was 88.1% (37/42 PCR positives detected; CI 75.0% - 94.8%). The negative percent agreement was 98.8% (245/248; CI 96.5% - 99.6%). The overall sensitivity of Panbio with NMT sampling was 84.4% (38/45; CI 71.2% - 92.3%) and 88.9% (40/45; CI 76.5% - 95.5%) with NP sampling. Specificity was 99.2% (243/245; CI 97.1% - 99.8%) for both, NP and NMT sampling. The sensitivity of the Panbio test in participants with high viral load (> 7 log10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/mL) was 96.3% (CI 81.7% - 99.8%) for both, NMT and NP sampling. ConclusionFor the Panbio Ag-RDT supervised NMT self-sampling yields to results comparable to NP sampling. This suggests that nasal self-sampling could be used for scale-up population testing.
RESUMEN
BackgroundRapid antigen-detecting tests (Ag-RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can transform pandemic control. Thus far, sensitivity ([≤]85%) of lateral-flow assays has limited scale-up. Conceivably, microfluidic immunofluorescence Ag-RDTs could increase sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Materials and MethodsThis multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study investigated performance of the microfluidic immunofluorescence LumiraDx assay, enrolling symptomatic and asymptomatic participants with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants collected a supervised nasal mid-turbinate (NMT) self-swab for Ag-RDT testing, in addition to a professionally-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swab for routine testing with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Results were compared to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Sub-analyses investigated the results by viral load, symptom presence and duration. An analytical study assessed exclusivity and limit-of-detection (LOD). In addition, we evaluated ease-of-use. ResultsStudy conduct was between November 2nd 2020 and January 21st 2021. 761 participants were enrolled, with 486 participants reporting symptoms on testing day. 120 out of 146 RT-PCR positive cases were detected positive by LumiraDx, resulting in a sensitivity of 82.2% (95% CI: 75.2%-87.5%). Specificity was 99.3% (CI: 98.3-99.7%). Sensitivity was increased in individuals with viral load [≥] 7 log10 SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/ml (93.8%; CI: 86.2%-97.3%). Testing against common respiratory commensals and pathogens showed no cross-reactivity and LOD was estimated to be 2-56 PFU/mL. The ease-of-use-assessment was favourable for lower throughput settings. ConclusionThe LumiraDx assay showed excellent analytical sensitivity, exclusivity and clinical specificity with good clinical sensitivity using supervised NMT self-sampling.
RESUMEN
BackgroundDiagnostics are essential for controlling the pandemic. Identifying a reliable and fast diagnostic is needed to support testing. We assessed performance and ease-of-use of the Abbott PanBio antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). MethodsThis prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study enrolled at two sites in Germany. Following routine testing with RT-PCR, a second study-exclusive swab was performed for Ag-RDT testing. Routine swabs were nasopharyngeal (NP) or combined NP/oropharyngeal (OP) whereas the study-exclusive swabs were NP. To evaluate performance, sensitivity and specificity were assessed overall and in predefined sub analyses accordingly to cycle-threshold values, days of symptoms, disease severity and study site. Additionally, an ease-of-use assessment and System Usability Scale (SUS) were performed. Findings1108 participants were enrolled between Sept 28 and Oct 30, 2020. Of these, 106 (9{middle dot}6%) were PCR-positive. The Abbott PanBio detected 92/106 PCR-positive participants with a sensitivity of 86{middle dot}8% (95% CI: 79{middle dot}0% - 92{middle dot}0%) and a specificity of 99{middle dot}9% (95% CI: 99{middle dot}4%-100%). The sub analyses indicated that sensitivity was 95{middle dot}8% in CT-values <25 and within the first seven days from symptom onset. The test was characterized as easy to use (SUS: 86/100) and considered suitable for point-of- care settings. InterpretationThe Abbott PanBio Ag-RDT performs well for SARS-CoV-2 testing in this large manufacturer independent study, confirming its WHO recommendation for Emergency Use in settings with limited resources. FundingThe Foundation of Innovative New Diagnostics supplied the test kits for the study. The internal funds from the Heidelberg University as well as the Charite Berlin supported this study.
RESUMEN
BackgroundReliable point-of-care (POC) diagnostics not requiring laboratory infrastructure could be a game changer in the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the Global South. We assessed performance, limit of detection and ease-of-use of three antigen-detecting, rapid POC tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2. MethodsThis prospective, multi-centre diagnostic accuracy study recruited participants suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 in Germany and the UK. Paired nasopharyngeal swabs (NP) or NP and/or oropharyngeal swabs (OP) were collected from participants (one for clinical RT-PCR and one for Ag-RDT). Performance of each of three Ag-RDTs was compared to RT-PCR overall, and according to predefined subcategories e.g. cycle threshold (CT)-value, days from symptoms onset, etc. In addition, limited verification of the analytical limit-of-detection (LOD) was determined. To understand the usability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. ResultsBetween April 17th and August 25th, 2020, 2417 participants were enrolled, with 70 (3.0%) testing positive by RT-PCR. The best-performing test (SD Biosensor, Inc. STANDARD Q) was 76x6% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 62x8-86x4) sensitive and 99x3% (CI 98x6-99x6) specific. A sub-analysis showed all samples with RT-PCR CT-values <25 were detectable by STANDARD Q. The test was considered easy-to-use (SUS 86/100) and suitable for POC. Bioeasy and Coris showed specificity of 93x1% (CI 91x0%-94x8%) and 95x8% (CI 93x4%-97x4%), respectively, not meeting the predefined target of [≥]98%. ConclusionThere is large variability in performance of Ag-RDT with SD Biosensor showing promise. Given the usability at POC, this test is likely to have impact despite imperfect sensitivity; however further research and modelling are needed.
RESUMEN
Rapid large-scale testing is essential for controlling the ongoing pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The standard diagnostic pipeline for testing SARS-CoV-2 presence in patients with an ongoing infection is predominantly based on pharyngeal swabs, from which the viral RNA is extracted using commercial kits followed by reverse transcription and quantitative PCR detection. As a result of the large demand for testing, commercial RNA extraction kits may be limited and alternative, non-commercial protocols are needed. Here, we provide a magnetic bead RNA extraction protocol that is predominantly based on in-house made reagents and is performed in 96-well plates supporting large-scale testing. Magnetic bead RNA extraction was benchmarked against the commercial QIAcube extraction platform. Comparable viral RNA detection sensitivity and specificity were obtained by fluorescent and colorimetric RT-LAMP using N primers, as well as RT-qPCR using E gene primers showing that the here presented RNA extraction protocol can be combined with a variety of detection methods at high throughput. Importantly, the presented diagnostic workflow can be quickly set up in a laboratory without access to an automated pipetting robot.
RESUMEN
Emergence of the novel pathogenic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and its rapid pandemic spread presents numerous questions and challenges that demand immediate attention. Among these is the urgent need for a better understanding of humoral immune response against the virus as a basis for developing public health strategies to control viral spread. For this, sensitive, specific and quantitative serological assays are required. Here we describe the development of a semi-quantitative high-content microscopy-based assay for detection of three major classes (IgG, IgA and IgM) of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in human samples. The possibility to detect antibodies against the entire viral proteome together with a robust semi-automated image analysis workflow resulted in specific, sensitive and unbiased assay which complements the portfolio of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. The procedure described here has been used for clinical studies and provides a general framework for the application of quantitative high-throughput microscopy to rapidly develop serological assays for emerging virus infections.
RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus poses a significant public-health problem. In order to control the pandemic, rapid tests for detecting existing infections and assessing virus spread are critical. Approaches to detect viral RNA based on reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) hold outstanding promise towards greatly simplified and broadly applicable testing methods. RT-LAMP assays appear more robust than qPCR-based methods and only require incubation at a constant temperature, thus eliminating the need for sophisticated instrumentation. Here, we tested a two-color RT-LAMP protocol using clinical SARS-CoV-2 samples and also established a protocol that does not require prior RNA isolation ("swab-to-RT-LAMP"). Our study is based on several hundred clinical patient samples with a wide range of viral loads, thus allowing, for the first time, to accurately determine the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in patients. We found that RT-LAMP can reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 samples with a qPCR threshold cycle number (CT value) of up to 30 in the standard RT-qPCR assay. We used both, either purified RNA or direct pharyngeal swab specimens and showed that RT-LAMP assays have, despite a decreased sensitivity compared to RT-qPCR, excellent specificity. We also developed a multiplexed LAMP-sequencing protocol as a diagnostic and validation procedure to detect and record the outcome of RT-LAMP assays. LAMP-sequencing is fully scalable and can assess the results of thousands of LAMP reactions in parallel. Finally, we propose applications of RT-LAMP based assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection.