RESUMO
BackgroundMany serological assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences in the detection mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays limited the comparability of seroprevalence estimates for populations being tested. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of serological assays used in SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence surveys, searching for published articles, preprints, institutional sources, and grey literature between January 1, 2020, and November 19, 2021. We described features of all identified assays and mapped performance metrics by the manufacturers, third-party head-to-head, and independent group evaluations. We compared the reported assay performance by evaluation source with a mixed-effect beta regression model. A simulation was run to quantify how biased assay performance affects population seroprevalence estimates with test adjustment. ResultsAmong 1807 included serosurveys, 192 distinctive commercial assays and 380 self-developed assays were identified. According to manufacturers, 28.6% of all commercial assays met WHO criteria for emergency use (sensitivity [Sn.] >= 90.0%, specificity [Sp.] >= 97.0%). However, manufacturers overstated the absolute values of Sn. of commercial assays by 1.0% [0.1, 1.4%] and 3.3% [2.7, 3.4%], and Sp. by 0.9% [0.9, 0.9%] and 0.2% [-0.1, 0.4%] compared to third-party and independent evaluations, respectively. Reported performance data was not sufficient to support a similar analysis for self-developed assays. Simulations indicate that inaccurate Sn. and Sp. can bias seroprevalence estimates adjusted for assay performance; the error level changes with the background seroprevalence. ConclusionsThe Sn. and Sp. of the serological assay are not fixed properties, but varying features depending on the testing population. To achieve precise population estimates and to ensure the comparability of seroprevalence, serosurveys should select assays with high performance validated not only by their manufacturers and adjust seroprevalence estimates based on assured performance data. More investigation should be directed to consolidating the performance of self-developed assays.
RESUMO
We used the dried tube specimen (DTS) procedure to develop the COVID-19 Serology Control Panel (CSCP). The CSCP contains five well-characterized SARS-CoV-2 pooled plasma samples made available for labs around the world to compare test kits, use for external quality assurance, harmonize laboratory testing, and train laboratory workers. Article Summary LineThe dried tube specimen system is a highly effective and resilient way to provide laboratories with well-characterized serology materials. The CSCP can help clinical laboratories inform their choice of diagnostic test to supplement clinical diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessary to protect front-line healthcare personnel. These shortages underscore the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate SARS-CoV-2-exposed PPE enabling safe reuse of masks and respirators. Efficient decontamination must be available not only in low-resourced settings, but also in well-resourced settings affected by PPE shortages. Methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, hitherto with many clinical applications including those used to inactivate virus in plasma, presents a novel approach for widely applicable PPE decontamination. Dry heat (DH) treatment is another potential low-cost decontamination method. MethodsMB and light (MBL) and DH treatments were used to inactivate coronavirus on respirator and mask material. We tested three N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), two medical masks (MMs), and one cloth community mask (CM). FFR/MM/CM materials were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 (a Betacoronavirus), murine hepatitis virus (MHV) (a Betacoronavirus), or porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) (an Alphacoronavirus), and treated with 10 {micro}M MB followed by 50,000 lux of broad-spectrum light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes, or with 75{degrees}C DH for 60 minutes. In parallel, we tested respirator and mask integrity using several standard methods and compared to the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. Intact FFRs/MMs/CM were subjected to five cycles of decontamination (5CD) to assess integrity using International Standardization Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) test methods. FindingsOverall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all three coronaviruses with at least a 4-log reduction. DH yielded similar results, with the exception of MHV, which was only reduced by 2-log after treatment. FFR/MM integrity was maintained for 5 cycles of MBL or DH treatment, whereas one FFR failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. Baseline performance for the CM was variable, but reduction of integrity was minimal. InterpretationMethylene blue with light and DH treatment decontaminated masks and respirators by inactivating three tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5CD. MBL decontamination of masks is effective, low-cost and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in all-resource settings. These attractive features support the utilization and continued development of this novel PPE decontamination method.
