Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19. Eligibility criteria and data analysis Eligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset. Results 5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%). Conclusion Higher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests. Study registration PROSPERO CRD42020179452.

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

Standard precautions to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission implies that infected cell cultures and clinical specimens may undergo some sort of inactivation to reduce or abolish infectivity. We evaluated three heat inactivation protocols (56 °C-30 min, 60 °C-60 min and 92 °C-15 min) on SARS-CoV-2 using (i) infected cell culture supernatant, (ii) virus-spiked human sera (iii) and nasopharyngeal samples according to the recommendations of the European norm NF EN 14476-A2. Regardless of the protocol and the type of samples, a 4 Log10 TCID50 reduction was observed. However, samples containing viral loads > 6 Log10 TCID50 were still infectious after 56 °C-30 min and 60 °C-60 min, although infectivity was < 10 TCID50. The protocols 56 °C-30 min and 60 °C-60 min had little influence on the RNA copies detection, whereas 92 °C-15 min drastically reduced the limit of detection, which suggests that this protocol should be avoided for inactivation ahead of molecular diagnostics. Lastly, 56 °C-30 min treatment of serum specimens had a negligible influence on the results of IgG detection using a commercial ELISA test, whereas a drastic decrease in neutralizing titers was observed.

A major gap in the Plasmodium vivax elimination toolkit is the identification of individuals carrying clinically silent and undetectable liver-stage parasites, called hypnozoites. This study developed a panel of serological exposure markers capable of classifying individuals with recent P. vivax infections who have a high likelihood of harboring hypnozoites. We measured IgG antibody responses to 342 P. vivax proteins in longitudinal clinical cohorts conducted in Thailand and Brazil and identified candidate serological markers of exposure. Candidate markers were validated using samples from year-long observational cohorts conducted in Thailand, Brazil and the Solomon Islands and antibody responses to eight P. vivax proteins classified P. vivax infections in the previous 9 months with 80% sensitivity and specificity. Mathematical models demonstrate that a serological testing and treatment strategy could reduce P. vivax prevalence by 59–69%. These eight antibody responses can serve as a biomarker, identifying individuals who should be targeted with anti-hypnozoite therapy. Plasmodium vivax can cause a clinically silent liver-stage infection that can reactivate, triggering blood-stage disease. A new test measuring antibody responses can identify P. vivax carriers for targeted treatment intervention.

The case fatality rate of rabies, nearly 100%, is one of the most unique characteristic of this ancient virus infection. The crucial role rabies virus neutralizing antibody plays in protection is both well established and explanation of why rabies serology is important. Various laboratory methods can and have been used but serum neutralization methods have long been the gold standard due to the ability to measure function (neutralization), however these methods can be difficult to perform for several reasons. Assays such as enzyme linked absorbance assays (ELISA), indirect fluorescence antibody (IFA) and more recently lateral flow methods are in use. Interpretation of results can be problematic, not only between methods but also due to modifications of the same method that can lead to misinterpretations. A common assumption in review of laboratory test results is that different methods for the same component produce comparable results under all conditions or circumstances. Assumptions and misinterpretations provide the potential for detrimental decisions, ranging from regulatory to clinically related, and most importantly what ‘level’ is protective. Review of the common challenges in performance and interpretation of rabies serology and specific examples illuminate critical issues to consider when reviewing and applying results of rabies serological testing.

Despite our inability to guarantee the accuracy of an immunity-certification process, failing to take action to identify people who could safely return to the workplace is itself an action that carries profound costs and health consequences.

Serological surveys with multiplex bead assays can be used to assess seroprevalence to multiple pathogens simultaneously. However, multiple methods have been used to generate cut-off values for seropositivity and these may lead to inconsistent interpretation of results. A literature review was conducted to describe the methods used to determine cut-off values for data generated by multiplex bead assays. A search was conducted in PubMed that included articles published from January 2010 to January 2020, and 308 relevant articles were identified that included the terms \"serology\", \"cut-offs\", and \"multiplex bead assays\". After application of exclusion of articles not relevant to neglected tropical diseases (NTD), vaccine preventable diseases (VPD), or malaria, 55 articles were examined based on their relevance to NTD or VPD. The most frequently applied approaches to determine seropositivity included the use of presumed unexposed populations, mixture models, receiver operating curves (ROC), and international standards. Other methods included the use of quantiles, pre-exposed endemic cohorts, and visual inflection points. For disease control programmes, seropositivity is a practical and easily interpretable health metric but determining appropriate cut-offs for positivity can be challenging. Considerations for optimal cut-off approaches should include factors such as methods recommended by previous research, transmission dynamics, and the immunological backgrounds of the population. In the absence of international standards for estimating seropositivity in a population, the use of consistent methods that align with individual disease epidemiological data will improve comparability between settings and enable the assessment of changes over time.

Genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection is the most commonly diagnosed sexually transmitted infection. Trachoma is caused by ocular infection with C trachomatis and is the leading infectious cause of blindness worldwide. New serological assays for C trachomatis could facilitate improved understanding of C trachomatis epidemiology and prevention. C trachomatis serology offers a means of investigating the incidence of chlamydia infection and might be developed as a biomarker of scarring sequelae, such as pelvic inflammatory disease. Therefore, serological assays have potential as epidemiological tools to quantify unmet need, inform service planning, evaluate interventions including screening and treatment, and to assess new vaccine candidates. However, questions about the performance characteristics and interpretation of C trachomatis serological assays remain, which must be addressed to advance development within this field. In this Personal View, we explore the available information about C trachomatis serology and propose several priority actions. These actions involve development of target product profiles to guide assay selection and assessment across multiple applications and populations, establishment of a serum bank to facilitate assay development and evaluation, and development of technical and statistical methods for assay evaluation and analysis of serological findings. The field of C trachomatis serology will benefit from collaboration across the public health community to align technological developments with their potential applications.

Hepatitis Delta Virus (HDV), a satellite virus of Hepatitis B virus, exacerbates liver damage in affected individuals. Screening for HDV antibodies in HBsAg positive patients is recommended, but the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests remains uncertain. This review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for HDV. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus etc. for relevant studies. Studies measuring the sensitivity and specificity of serological HDV tests against PCR as a reference standard were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for each test method and sero-marker were calculated. The review included six studies with 11 study arms, evaluating ARCHITECT immunoassay, EIA, ELISA, QMAC, RIA, and Western Blot test methods targeting Anti-HDV IgG, Total anti-HDV and Anti-HDV IgM. Sensitivities for Anti-HDV IgG, Total Anti-HDV and Anti-HDV IgM, tests were 97.4%, 51.9%, and 62.0%, respectively, with specificities of 95.3%, 80.0%, and 85.0%. Our findings, with its limited number of studies, suggest that HDV serological tests, particularly those identifying Anti IgG exhibit high accuracy and can serve as effective screening tools for HDV.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 outbreak as a world pandemic on 12th March 2020. Diagnosis of suspected cases is confirmed by nucleic acid assays with real-time PCR, using respiratory samples. Serology tests are comparatively easier to perform, but their utility may be limited by the performance and the fact that antibodies appear later during the disease course. We aimed to describe the performance data on serological assays for COVID-19. A review of multiple reports and kit inserts on the diagnostic performance of rapid tests from various manufacturers that are commercially available were performed. Only preliminary data are available currently. From a total of nine rapid detection test (RDT) kits, three kits offer total antibody detection, while six kits offer combination SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection in two separate test lines. All kits are based on colloidal gold-labeled immunochromatography principle and one-step method with results obtained within 15 minutes, using whole blood, serum or plasma samples. The sensitivity for both IgM and IgG tests ranges between 72.7% and 100%, while specificity ranges between 98.7% to 100%. Two immunochromatography using nasopharyngeal or throat swab for detection of COVID-19 specific antigen are also reviewed. There is much to determine regarding the value of serological testing in COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring. More comprehensive evaluations of their performance are rapidly underway. The use of serology methods requires appropriate interpretations of the results and understanding the strengths and limitations of such tests.