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.

Standardized evaluation of Zika nucleic acid tests used in clinical settings and blood screening.

Early detection of Zika virus (ZIKV) transmission within geographic regions informs implementation of community mitigation measures such as vector reduction strategies, travel advisories, enhanced surveillance among pregnant women, and possible implementation of blood and organ donor screening or deferral. Standardized, comparative assessments of ZIKV assay and testing lab performance are important to develop optimal approaches to ZIKV diagnostic testing and surveillance. We conducted an expanded blinded panel study to characterize and compare the analytical performance of fifteen diagnostic and blood screening ZIKV NAT assays, including detection among single- and multiplex assays detecting ZIKV, dengue virus (DENV) and chikungunya virus (CHIKV). A 300 member blinded panel was constructed, consisting of 11 serial half-log dilutions ranging from ~104 to 10-1 genome equivalents/mL in 25 replicates each of the Tahitian Asian ZIKV isolate in ZIKV-negative human serum. Additionally, clinical samples from individuals with DENV-like syndrome or suspected ZIKV infection in Brazil were evaluated. The majority of assays demonstrated good specificity. Analytical sensitivities varied 1-2 logs, with a substantially higher limit of detection (LOD) in one outlier. Similar analytical sensitivity for ZIKV RNA detection in singleplex and multiplex assays of the Grifols and ThermoFisher tests were observed. Coefficient of Assay Efficiency (CE), calculated to characterize assays' RNA extraction and amplification efficiency, ranged from 0.13 for the Certest VIASURE multiplex and 0.75 for the Grifols multiplex assays. In general, assays using transcription mediated amplification (TMA) technology had greater CE compared to assays using conventional PCR technology. Donor screening NAT assays were significantly more sensitive than diagnostic RT-qPCR assays, primarily attributable to higher sample input volumes. However, ideal assays to maximize sensitivity and throughput may not be a viable option in all contexts, with other factors such as cost, instrumentation, and regulatory approval status influencing assay availability and selection, particularly in resource constrained settings.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Understanding the role of incentives for achieving and sustaining viral suppression: A qualitative sub-study of a financial incentives trial in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Viral suppression among people living with HIV (PLHIV) is essential for protecting health and preventing HIV transmission, yet globally, rates of viral suppression are sub-optimal. Interventions to improve HIV prevention and care cascade outcomes remain vital. Financial incentives hold promise for improving these outcomes, yet to date, clinical trial results have been mixed. METHODS: This qualitative sub-study, embedded in a trial (NCT02890459) in Uganda to test whether incentives are effective for achieving viral suppression in PLHIV, sought to enhance our understanding of the factors that influence this outcome. Forty-nine (n = 49) PLHIV, purposely sampled to balance across gender, study arm, and viral suppression status, were interviewed to explore barriers and motivations for care engagement, adherence, and viral suppression, and attributions for decision-making, including perceived influence of incentives on behaviors. RESULTS: While many participants with undetectable viral load (VL) who received incentives said the incentives motivated their ART adherence, others expressed intrinsic motivation for adherence. All felt that incentives reduced burdens of transport costs, lost income due to time spent away from work, and food insecurity. Incentives may have activated attention and memory for some, as excitement about anticipating incentives helped them adhere to medication schedules. In comparison, participants who were randomized to receive incentives but had detectable VL faced a wider range, complexity and severity of challenges to care engagement. Notably, their narratives included more accounts of poor treatment in clinics, food insecurity, and severe forms of stigma. With or without incentives, adherence was reinforced through experiencing restored health due to ART, social support (especially from partners), and good quality counseling and clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: In considering why incentives sometimes fail to achieve behavior change, it may be helpful to attend to the full set of factors- psychological, interpersonal, social and structural- that militate against the behavior change required to achieve behavioral outcomes. To be effective, incentives may need to be combined with other interventions to address the spectrum of barriers to care engagement.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.

Routine laboratory testing to determine if a patient has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Specific diagnostic tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and resulting COVID-19 disease are not always available and take time to obtain results. Routine laboratory markers such as white blood cell count, measures of anticoagulation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, are used to assess the clinical status of a patient. These laboratory tests may be useful for the triage of people with potential COVID-19 to prioritize them for different levels of treatment, especially in situations where time and resources are limited. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: On 4 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included both case-control designs and consecutive series of patients that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory testing as a triage test to determine if a person has COVID-19. The reference standard could be reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) alone; RT-PCR plus clinical expertise or and imaging; repeated RT-PCR several days apart or from different samples; WHO and other case definitions; and any other reference standard used by the study authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study. They also assessed the methodological quality of the studies, using QUADAS-2. We used the 'NLMIXED' procedure in SAS 9.4 for the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) meta-analyses of tests for which we included four or more studies. To facilitate interpretation of results, for each meta-analysis we estimated summary sensitivity at the points on the SROC curve that corresponded to the median and interquartile range boundaries of specificities in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies in this review, including 14,126 COVID-19 patients and 56,585 non-COVID-19 patients in total. Studies evaluated a total of 67 different laboratory tests. Although we were interested in the diagnotic accuracy of routine tests for COVID-19, the included studies used detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection through RT-PCR as reference standard. There was considerable heterogeneity between tests, threshold values and the settings in which they were applied. For some tests a positive result was defined as a decrease compared to normal vaues, for other tests a positive result was defined as an increase, and for some tests both increase and decrease may have indicated test positivity. None of the studies had either low risk of bias on all domains or low concerns for applicability for all domains. Only three of the tests evaluated had a summary sensitivity and specificity over 50%. These were: increase in interleukin-6, increase in C-reactive protein and lymphocyte count decrease. Blood count Eleven studies evaluated a decrease in white blood cell count, with a median specificity of 93% and a summary sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 8.0% to 27%; very low-certainty evidence). The 15 studies that evaluated an increase in white blood cell count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. Four studies evaluated a decrease in neutrophil count. Their median specificity was 93%, corresponding to a summary sensitivity of 10% (95% CI 1.0% to 56%; low-certainty evidence). The 11 studies that evaluated an increase in neutrophil count had a lower median specificity and a lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of an increase in neutrophil percentage (4 studies) was 59% (95% CI 1.0% to 100%) at median specificity (38%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in monocyte count (4 studies) was 13% (95% CI 6.0% to 26%) at median specificity (73%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in lymphocyte count (13 studies) was 64% (95% CI 28% to 89%) at median specificity (53%; low-certainty evidence). Four studies that evaluated a decrease in lymphocyte percentage showed a lower median specificity and lower corresponding sensitivity. The summary sensitivity of a decrease in platelets (4 studies) was 19% (95% CI 10% to 32%) at median specificity (88%; low-certainty evidence). Liver function tests The summary sensitivity of an increase in alanine aminotransferase (9 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in aspartate aminotransferase (7 studies) was 29% (95% CI 17% to 45%) at median specificity (81%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of a decrease in albumin (4 studies) was 21% (95% CI 3% to 67%) at median specificity (66%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in total bilirubin (4 studies) was 12% (95% CI 3.0% to 34%) at median specificity (92%; very low-certainty evidence). Markers of inflammation The summary sensitivity of an increase in CRP (14 studies) was 66% (95% CI 55% to 75%) at median specificity (44%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in procalcitonin (6 studies) was 3% (95% CI 1% to 19%) at median specificity (86%; very low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in IL-6 (four studies) was 73% (95% CI 36% to 93%) at median specificity (58%) (very low-certainty evidence). Other biomarkers The summary sensitivity of an increase in creatine kinase (5 studies) was 11% (95% CI 6% to 19%) at median specificity (94%) (low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in serum creatinine (four studies) was 7% (95% CI 1% to 37%) at median specificity (91%; low-certainty evidence). The summary sensitivity of an increase in lactate dehydrogenase (4 studies) was 25% (95% CI 15% to 38%) at median specificity (72%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although these tests give an indication about the general health status of patients and some tests may be specific indicators for inflammatory processes, none of the tests we investigated are useful for accurately ruling in or ruling out COVID-19 on their own. Studies were done in specific hospitalized populations, and future studies should consider non-hospital settings to evaluate how these tests would perform in people with milder symptoms.

An open-source molecular diagnostic platform approach for outbreak and epidemic preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic development for outbreak pathogens has typically followed a disease-specific reactive rather than proactive response. Given the diversity of outbreak pathogens, particularly those prioritised by the World Health Organization Research and Development Blueprint, a more flexible and proactive approach to epidemic preparedness is needed to expand access to critical molecular diagnostic tests in peripheral and resource-constrained deployment settings. OBJECTIVE: New and more sustainable directives are needed to spur the development of high-quality products, particularly for epidemics more often found in low- and middle-income countries. To leverage and de-risk the development process, we present the benefits and challenges of an open-source business model for co-development of molecular diagnostic tests for decentralised settings. METHODS: We identify key outbreak pathogens that are available only for testing in high infrastructure laboratories and compare in-country installed base platforms that could be leveraged for menu expansion. Key strengths and challenges for development are highlighted for both platform and assay developers, with discussion of how to leverage and de-risk the process through an open-source development model. RESULTS: Depending on the specific partner strengths, options for partnership roles are presented. The proposed open-source business model addresses the particular challenges in the detection of outbreak- and epidemic-prone pathogens in low- and middle-income countries, reduces development and deployment risks to support outbreak response, strengthens diagnostic capacity and creates a viable market for product developers. CONCLUSION: We hope this model for a collaborative and open-source approach for molecular diagnostics serves to encourage stakeholders to consider co-development partnerships to improve outbreak preparedness and epidemic/pandemic response.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease.

BACKGROUND: Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading some patients to require intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever or cough, and signs such as oxygen saturation or lung auscultation findings, are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19 disease, or select patients for further diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19 disease or COVID-19 pneumonia. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 April 2020, we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with suspected COVID-19 disease, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 disease and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), clinical expertise, imaging, serology tests and World Health Organization (WHO) or other definitions of COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Analyses were descriptive, presenting sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) space and in dumbbell plots. We did not attempt meta-analysis due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity across studies and the high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 studies including 7706 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 5% to 38% with a median of 17%. There were no studies from primary care settings, although we did find seven studies in outpatient clinics (2172 participants), and four studies in the emergency department (1401 participants). We found data on 27 signs and symptoms, which fall into four different categories: systemic, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular. No studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms and results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity; only six symptoms had a sensitivity of at least 50% in at least one study: cough, sore throat, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache. Of these, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache could be considered red flags (defined as having a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5) for COVID-19 as their specificity was above 90%, meaning that they substantially increase the likelihood of COVID-19 disease when present. Seven studies carried a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional four studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. These factors make it very difficult to determine the diagnostic properties of these signs and symptoms from the included studies. We also had concerns about the applicability of these results, since most studies included participants who were already admitted to hospital or presenting to hospital settings. This makes these findings less applicable to people presenting to primary care, who may have less severe illness and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 disease. None of the studies included any data on children, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We hope that future updates of this review will be able to provide more information about the diagnostic properties of signs and symptoms in different settings and age groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19 disease, are urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions such as self-isolation or selecting patients for further diagnostic testing. We also need data on potentially more specific symptoms such as loss of sense of smell. Studies in older adults are especially important.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

A pilot randomized trial of incentive strategies to promote HIV retesting in rural Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Retesting for HIV is critical to identifying newly-infected persons and reinforcing prevention efforts among at-risk adults. Incentives can increase one-time HIV testing, but their role in promoting retesting is unknown. We sought to test feasibility and acceptability of incentive strategies, including commitment contracts, to promote HIV retesting among at-risk adults in rural Uganda. METHODS: At-risk HIV-negative adults were enrolled in a pilot trial assessing feasibility and acceptability of incentive strategies to promote HIV retesting three months after enrollment. Participants were randomized (1:1:3) to: 1) no incentive; 2) standard cash incentive (~US$4); and 3) commitment contract: participants could voluntarily make a low- or high-value deposit that would be returned with added interest (totaling ~US$4 including the deposit) upon retesting or lost if participants failed to retest. Contracts sought to promote retesting by leveraging loss aversion and addressing present bias via pre-commitment. Outcomes included acceptability of trial enrollment, contract feasibility (proportion of participants making deposits), and HIV retesting uptake. RESULTS: Of 130 HIV-negative eligible adults, 123 (95%) enrolled and were randomized: 74 (60%) to commitment contracts, 25 (20%) to standard incentives, and 24 (20%) to no incentive. Of contract participants, 69 (93%) made deposits. Overall, 93 (76%) participants retested for HIV: uptake was highest in the standard incentive group (22/25 [88%]) and lowest in high-value contract (26/36 [72%]) and no incentive (17/24 [71%]) groups. CONCLUSION: In a randomized trial of strategies to promote HIV retesting among at-risk adults in Uganda, incentive strategies, including commitment contracts, were feasible and had high acceptability. Our findings suggest use of incentives for HIV retesting merits further comparison in a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT:02890459.

Men's Beliefs About the Likelihood of Serodiscordance in Couples with an HIV-Positive Partner: Survey Evidence from Rural Uganda.

Few studies in sub-Saharan Africa have assessed men's knowledge about the likelihood of serodiscordance in couples with an HIV-positive partner and how this is affected by antiretroviral therapy (ART). Using a Likert scale and probabilistic scale, we elicited beliefs of 2532 rural Ugandan men about the likelihood of seroconcordance in married couples with an HIV-positive female partner who is either taking ART or not taking ART. Logistic regression analyses explored associations between beliefs and various health behaviors. Probabilistic scale responses were consistent with Likert scale responses. Seroconcordance was believed to be likely in the scenarios without ART and with ART, with mean seroconcordance likelihood of 8.1 and 6.6, respectively, on a scale of 0-10. The majority of participants (57%) believed the likelihood of seroconcordance was lower in the scenario with ART. The results suggest a need for enhanced education among men about serodiscordance in stable relationships and about the preventive effects of ART.

Diagnostics for filovirus detection: impact of recent outbreaks on the diagnostic landscape.

Ebolaviruses and Marburg virus (MARV) both belong to the family Filoviridae and cause severe haemorrhagic fever in humans. Due to high mortality rates and potential for spread from rural to urban regions, they are listed on the WHO R&D blueprint of high-priority pathogens. Recent ebolavirus outbreaks in Western and Central Africa have highlighted the importance of diagnostic testing in epidemic preparedness for these pathogens and led to the rapid development of a number of commercially available benchtop and point-of-care nucleic acid amplification tests as well as serological assays and rapid diagnostic tests. Despite these advancements, challenges still remain. While products approved under emergency use licenses during outbreak periods may continue to be used post-outbreak, a lack of clarity and incentive surrounding the regulatory approval pathway during non-outbreak periods has deterred many manufacturers from seeking full approvals. Waning of funding and poor access to samples after the 2014-2016 outbreak also contributed to cessation of development once the outbreak was declared over. There is a need for tests with improved sensitivity and specificity, and assays that can use alternative sample types could reduce the need for invasive procedures and expensive equipment, making testing in field conditions more feasible. For MARV, availability of diagnostic tests is still limited, restricted to a single ELISA test and assay panels designed to differentiate between multiple pathogens. It may be helpful to extend the target product profile for ebolavirus diagnostics to include MARV, as the viruses have many overlapping characteristics.

Diagnostic applications for Lassa fever in limited-resource settings.

Lassa fever, caused by arenavirus Lassa virus (LASV), is an acute viral haemorrhagic disease that affects up to an estimated 300 000 individuals and causes up to 5000 deaths per year in West Africa. Currently available LASV diagnostic methods are difficult to operationalise in low-resource health centres and may be less sensitive to detecting all known or emerging LASV strains. To prioritise diagnostic development for LASV, we assessed the diagnostic applications for case detection, clinical management, surveillance, outbreak response, and therapeutic and vaccine development at various healthcare levels. Diagnostic development should prioritise point-of-care and near-patient diagnostics, especially those with the ability to detect all lineages of LASV, as they would allow for rapid detection in resource-limited health facilities closer to the patient.