About the Author(s)


Gilad Mensky symbol
Department of Internal Medicine, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Faculty of Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Tristan Pillay symbol
School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Alexander von Klemperer symbol
School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Department of Internal Medicine, Helen Joseph Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Merika J. Tsitsi symbol
School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department, Internal Medicine, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Michelle Venter symbol
School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department, Internal Medicine, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Colin N. Menezes symbol
School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department, Internal Medicine, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Sarah A. van Blydenstein Email symbol
School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Division of Pulmonology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Citation


Mensky G, Pillay T, Von Klemperer A, et al. Validation of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (BNCP – 402 and BNCP402) in a South African setting. S Afr J Infect Dis. 2022;37(1), a431. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajid.v37i1.431

Note: Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article as Online Appendix 1.

Original Research

Validation of the COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (BNCP – 402 and BNCP402) in a South African setting

Gilad Mensky, Tristan Pillay, Alexander von Klemperer, Merika J. Tsitsi, Michelle Venter, Colin N. Menezes, Sarah A. van Blydenstein

Received: 05 Apr. 2022; Accepted: 13 June 2022; Published: 31 Aug. 2022

Copyright: © 2022. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Different diagnostic tools could improve early detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A number of antibody-based serological point-of-care tests have been developed to supplement real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based diagnosis. This study describes the validity of an antibody test, namely the immunoglobulin G (IgG)/immunoglobulin M (IgM) Rapid Test Cassette® (BNCP – 402 and BNCP402), manufactured by Spring Healthcare Services.

Methods: A prospective cohort validation study was undertaken at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital between 16 July 2020 and 12 August 2020. A total of 101 patients admitted as COVID-19 cases under investigation were included in the study. They were divided into two categories depending on time since symptom onset: testing performed within seven days (early cohort) and after seven days (late cohort). The rapid antibody test was compared to the RT-PCR.

Results: Overall, the test has a sensitivity and specificity of 85.2% and 80.0%, respectively, for a combination of IgG and IgM. Sensitivity and specificity of IgG testing alone were 81.5% and 85%. Sensitivity improved for testing with increasing time from symptom onset; however, specifity was not significantly different.

Conclusion: The study data adds to the body of evidence that because of relatively low sensitivity and specificity, there is a limited role for antibody-based point-of-care testing in the acute phase of COVID-19 infection, as was the case with this IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (BNCP – 402 and BNCP402). There may exist a role for such testing in patients recovered from prior COVID-19 infection or in seroprevalence studies; however, additional evaluations at later timepoints from symptom onset are required.

Keywords: COVID-19; antibody test; South Africa; sensitivity; rapid testing; point of care; serological test; immunoassay.

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).1,2 This disease initially presented at the end of December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei, China.1,2,3 In South Africa, the first patient was confirmed to have COVID-19 on 05 March 2020.4 At present, South Africa has experienced a number of distinct waves of COVID-19 spread through the population, caused by distinct variants of concern.5,6 As such, additional information regarding the role of bedside tests in the diagnosis or population screening for COVID-19 remains valuable to clinicians.

Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is recommended as the gold standard for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on the identification of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA).7,8,9,10,11 In clinical practice, RT-PCR is performed using samples from either oropharyngeal (OP) or nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs.12 The sensitivity of these tests is dependent upon viral particles present in the nasopharynx or oropharynx. The SARS-CoV-2 infection can persist, as evidenced by faecal shedding of the virus after OP swabs have become negative.13 These factors have led to variable sensitivity of RNA RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 with higher false negatives, particularly in presymptomatic or late disease.14,15,16,17,18 The RT-PCR test is relatively expensive, requires specialised equipment and skilled technicians and may be vulnerable to cross-contamination.15,19

Serological testing for human anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies has been explored to supplement RT-PCR in the diagnosis of COVID-19.11,15,19,20 The human immune response to SARS-CoV-2 virus follows a similar course to that previously described for other Coronaviridae, with IgM detection as early as Day 3–5 of infection.11,19,21,22 Existing evidence suggests, however, that serology-based testing improves in sensitivity with increasing time from symptom onset, with relatively low sensitivity before seven days.14,22,23,24 The sensitivity for IgG remained high up to six weeks after symptom onset.25 Early in the pandemic, it was suggested that combining serological tests with RT-PCR may improve case detection rate in early disease over RT-PCR alone.22,23,26 However, subsequent data suggests low sensitivity in the clinical setting of early phases of acute COVID-19 infection.27

In a bid to expand testing and diagnostic capabilities early in the pandemic, many serology-based POC tests were developed.26,28 These were predominantly lateral-flow immunoassays (LFA) for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM.26 The utility of rapid tests may extend to identifying individuals who have already seroconverted; thus, this may have a role in public health planning and response29 or through ongoing seroprevalence studies.11,20,27

Given their relative low cost, ease of use and rapid test result turnaround, such tests could play important roles in the ongoing South African response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study was initially conceived and implemented when there existed limited data regarding the role of such serology in the early acute phase of infection. As such, this study sought to explore the performance of such a point-of-care test (the IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (BNCP–402 and BNCP402), manufactured by Spring Healthcare Services), in a South African setting as compared with the gold standard RT-PCR. This test is a qualitative lateral-flow chromatographic immunoassay in human whole blood, serum or plasma specimens.25

Methods

A prospective cohort validation study was performed. Data were collected between 16 July 2020 and 12 August 2020, until 101 tests were performed. The study took place at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital in Soweto, Gauteng, South Africa. The study included all inpatients, either suspected of COVID-19 (under investigation) as well as COVID-19-infected patients and presumed noninfected patients. A valid RT-PCR result was required, the result of which was taken to be the gold standard. Viral RNA RT-PCR-based tests were performed on swabs taken from the nasopharynx. The RT-PCR was performed by trained health care staff in accordance with standard facility operating procedures. Patients 18 years or older were recruited. Participants were included in the following categories:

  • Positive control group
    • Laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19 by RT-PCR.
    • Time from symptom onset is > 7 days.
  • Negative control group
    • Whilst in an ideal situation, these would be young healthy volunteers, given the resource scarcity of RT-PCR testing at the time of study, this cohort consisted of persons under investigation who were excluded from having COVID-19 clinically and by laboratory measures but may be ill with other disease.
  • Indeterminate group under investigation (early cohort)
    • Persons under investigation for whom a NP sample has been taken and sent for laboratory diagnosis, but no result is present at the time of recruitment.
    • Time from symptom onset is < 7 days.
  • Indeterminate group under investigation (late cohort)
    • Persons under investigation for whom a NP sample has been taken and sent for laboratory diagnosis but no result is present at the time of recruitment.
    • Time from symptom onset is > 7 days.

The sample size in order to accurately calculate the negative predictive value given the manufacturer specified sensitivity and specificity for IgG:

  • Positive control cohort: n = 45
  • Negative control cohort: n = 5
  • Undetermined cohort (early): n = 25
  • Undetermined cohort (late): n = 25

Following informed consent, clinical data was captured, namely age, symptoms and duration of symptoms. The rapid test was then performed following manufacturer instructions. This required either the use of a blood sample already collected in an acid citrate dextrose tube or a finger prick test. The patient was informed of the results of the test and appropriately counselled.

The data obtained was centralised in an anonymised Excel spreadsheet and updated daily. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap® (Research Electronic Data Capture) electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of the Witwatersrand.30

Data were reported as a percentage, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) unless otherwise specified. For calculation and comparisons of sensitivity and specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated. For comparison between tests, area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC was calculated and compared using the formula:

where SE = standard error of the area. A two-tailed p-value was then calculated from the normal cumulative distribution. P-values of < 0.05 were considered significant. Further software used in the statistical calculations included GraphPad Prism® (v9.0.2, GraphPad software). The primary endpoints were categorical and hence non-parametric statistical tests were used. The chi-squared and Z test was used to compare the results according to IgG, IgM and time groups.

Results

The mean time from onset of symptoms to time of testing was 11.25 days (9 h to 38.4 days). A total of 46 men and 55 women were included in the study who ranged in age from 18 to 86 years of age. Interestingly, only 10.0% of patients could positively identify contact with a person under investigation (PUI) or confirmed COVID-19 positive individual. The 90.1% of patients were symptomatic on presentation, most commonly with dyspnoea (Figure 1). All asymptomatic patients were found to be RT-PCR positive for COVID-19.

FIGURE 1: Common presenting complaints of patients under investigation of COVID-19.

Patients who presented with ‘other symptoms’ included chest pain (n = 16), myalgia (n = 8) and gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 5).

Of the 101 patients included for testing, 81 had laboratory-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection as evidenced by positive RT-PCR results. Twenty patients were RT-PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2. Using these gold standard test results as true positive and true negative cases, respectively, the performance of the lateral flow antibody (LFAB) could be assessed in point-of-care diagnosis of COVID-19 (Table 1).

TABLE 1: Relative performance of antibody lateral-flow assay in detecting SARS-CoV-2.

Compared with the gold standard RT-PCR, sensitivity of IgG alone (81.5%, IQR: 71.7% – 88.4%) and a combination of either IgG or IgM ( 85.1%, IQR: 75.9% – 91.3%) were significantly higher than the sensitivity of IgM testing alone (40.1%, IQR: 30.7% – 51.6%, χ2 of sensitivity IgG vs IgM vs combined = 46.17, degree of freedom (df) = 2, p < 0.0001). The specificity of all three measures were similar between three categories namely: (1) IgG alone (85.0%, IQR: 64.0% – 94.8%); (2) IgM alone (95.0%, IQR: 76.4% – 99.7%); and (3) a combination of IgG and IgM (80.0%, IQR: 58.4% – 91.9%, χ2 of specificity IgG vs IgM vs combined = 2.019, df = 2, p = 0.3644).

Furthermore, using the ROC analysis at the AUC was significantly greater in the group of data investigating IgG alone compared with that of IgM (AUC = 0.83 vs 0.68, Z = 1.96, p = 0.05), meaning that IgG alone performed better as a diagnostic test than IgM alone. There was no difference between either IgG alone (Z = 0.08, p = 0.93) or IgM alone (Z = 1.81, p = 0.07) compared with a combination of the two.

It has been shown that the time from symptom onset can affect the sensitivity and specificity of serology-based tests such as the lateral-flow assay used4, likely because of time taken to peak production of IgG and IgM as part of the immune response. For this reason, comparisons of subpopulations who presented either before (early) or after seven days (late) from symptom onset were undertaken.

When comparing the early and late cohorts, no statistically significant difference was noted between time periods in the sensitivity of either IgG alone (Figure 2, 73.3% [48.1% – 89.1%] vs 85.0% [74.3% – 92.6%], or a combination of IgM and IgG (Figure 2, 73.3% [48.1% – 89.1%] vs 89.3% [78.5% – 95.0%]. While IgM sensitivity testing showed a trend in improvement from the first seven days, this was not significant (20.0% [7.0% – 45.2%] vs 46.4% [34.0% – 59.3%], Z = 1.85, p < 0.06).

FIGURE 2: IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (BNCP–402 and BNCP402) – Comparing the sensitivities of (a) IgM, (b) IgG and (c) combined and how they changed with time.

There were no statistically significant differences in the specificity (Figure 3) of IgG alone (p = 0.31), IgM alone (p = 0.40) or combined IgM and IgG (p = 0.65) between early and late cohorts.

FIGURE 3: IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (BNCP–402 and BNCP402) – Comparing the specificities of (a) IgM, (b) IgG and (c) combined and how they changed with time.

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a significant burden on the health care system in South Africa.31 While point-of-care testing with rapid assays remains an important avenue for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infected patients,32,33 the role of serological tests as opposed to other rapid testing modalities is now understood to be more limited than was evident early in the pandemic.27

This study adds to the body of evidence that such serological testing has a limited role in the acute diagnosis of COVID-19,14,27 which is reflected in current guidelines.34,35 It should be noted that all patients included in this study were hospital inpatients, and as such it is possible to comment only on the efficacy of the rapid test in this setting.

As of March 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration requires a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 95%, respectively, for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing. Other national regulatory bodies have similar high standards of accuracy.28,36,37 Relevant to the South African setting, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) requires that serological tests have a sensitivity of > 85% and specificity of > 95%, as compared to the gold standard RT-PCR.38,39 The manufacturer-specified standards of the tests used met this criteria under controlled conditions (see Online Appendix 1). Importantly, in an onsite assessment of performance in the hands of clinicians, lower sensitivity and specificity can be found than this, particularly in the first seven days after symptom onset. In particular, the wide variance of test specificity that is observed would make interpretation of a negative result difficult.40 As such, this assay is not an adequate test in isolation for diagnostic purposes in the acute setting (i.e. before 14 days post symptom onset). Importantly, the SAHPRA specifications are for the recommended use in patients who are in the maximal IgG production window between 14 and 44 days post symptom onset, which is beyond the scope of this current study.38,39 It should, however, be noted that real-world performance of diagnostic testing often can differ from what is seen under more controlled conditions. Indeed, the sensitivity and specificity recorded in the current study are superior to the on-site performance estimates of some similar tests, particularly during the early period of interest.37,41

At this stage in the pandemic, the rapid antibody test is likely only useful as a seroprevalence tool within a community to determine level of immunity, either post natural infection or resulting from vaccination. This may be best implemented in an epidemiological seroprevalence or surveillance setting.11 Any serology-based rapid tests being considered for use in such a setting should be validated according to guidelines using patients with a median time from symptom onset of 33 days.38

Interpretation of such serological tests is also further complicated by the vaccine status of the patient undergoing testing. With the roll-out of a national vaccination program, a significant proportion of the population now has exposure to COVID-19 vaccines.42,43 At present, such point-of-care testing should not be recommended for the evaluation of neutralising antibodies and vaccine efficacy; however, an immune response elicited by vaccination may affect the specificity of the IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette.

Conclusion

In the population group tested, the IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (BNCP–402 and BNCP40) had a lower sensitivity and specificity as compared with the gold standard RT-PCR than would allow for reliable diagnosis of acute COVID-19. The data in this study support the general guidelines listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SAHPRA suggesting that antibody testing does not have a place in the acute diagnosis of COVID-19. These results do not speak to the rapid tests’ sensitivity and specificity in patients who have recovered from prior COVID-19. Further study would be recommended in a patient cohort further from symptom onset, as there may still be a role for such a point-of-care test in such patients or in an epidemiological surveillance role.

Limitations

This study only included in-hospital patients, and unfortunately, details of symptoms and severity were not captured.

This study was undertaken during the first and second waves of COVID-19. South Africa is currently in the fifth wave, and the landscape has changed significantly in that the population has access to vaccination against COVID-19, and a proportion of people have prior infection. At the time that this study was undertaken, antibody testing was not as well established in diagnostic laboratories compared to now.

Acknowledgements

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Authors’ contributions

G.M. was responsible for the writing of the original draft, data curation, writing review and editing; T.P. was responsible for the conceptualisation, methodology, writing of the original draft, visualisation, resources, writing review and editing and funding acquisition; A.v.K. was responsible for the formal analysis, visualisation, software, validation, data curation, resources, writing review and editing and funding acquisition; M.T. was responsible for the conceptualisation, visualisation, writing review and editing, supervision and funding acquisition; M.V. was responsible for the conceptualisation, writing of the original draft, writing review and editing; C.M. was responsible for the conceptualisation, visualisation, writing review and editing, supervision and funding acquisition; A.v.B. was responsible for the conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, writing of the original draft, visualisation, project administration, resources, writing review and editing, supervision and funding acquisition.

Ethical considerations

Approval was received from the University of Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics committee (Medical) (ref. no. M200574). Written informed consent from the patient or patient surrogate was obtained as per local ethics committee guidelines.

Funding information

COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette® (BNCP-402 and BNCP402S) was provided by Spring Fealthcare Services. Spring Healthcare had no role in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Data availability

Anonymised supporting data will be made available upon request from the corresponding author (G.M.) and are available in an Excel spreadsheet.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.

References

  1. Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(8):727–733. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
  2. Huang C, Wang Y Li, X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
  3. Xu X, Yu C, Qu J, et al. Imaging and clinical features of patients with 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(5):1275–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04735-9
  4. South African Department of Health. Minister Zweli Mkhize reports first case of Coronavirus Covid-19 [homepage on the Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 5]. Available from: https://www.gov.za/speeches/health-reports-first-case-covid-19-coronavirus-5-mar-2020-0000
  5. Viana R, Moyo S, Amoako DG, et al. Rapid epidemic expansion of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in southern Africa. Nature. 2022;603(7902):679–686. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04411-y
  6. Tegally H, Wilkinson E, Althaus CL, et al. Rapid replacement of the Beta variant by the Delta variant in South Africa. medRxiv. 2021:21264018. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.23.21264018
  7. Chu DKW, Pan Y, Cheng SMS, et al. Molecular diagnosis of a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) causing an outbreak of Pneumonia. Clin Chem. 2020;66(4):549–555. https//doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaa029
  8. Wang M, Wu Q, Xu W, et al. Clinical diagnosis of 8274 samples with 2019-novel coronavirus in Wuhan. medRxiv. 2020;9(1):62. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.12.20022327
  9. D’Cruz RJ, Currier AW, Sampson VB. Laboratory testing methods for novel severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2020.00468
  10. Wölfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature. 2020;581(7809):465–469. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x
  11. Zhou Y, Zhang L, Xie Y-H, Wu J. Advancements in detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection for confronting COVID-19 pandemics. Lab Invest. 2022;102:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41374-021-00663-w
  12. Walaza S, McMorrow M, Wolter N, et al. Guidelines for case-finding, diagnosis, and public health response in South Africa [homepage on the Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 July 2]. Available from: https://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NICD_DoH-COVID-19-Guidelines_Final_3-Jul-2020.pdf
  13. Zhang W, Du R-H, Li B, et al. Molecular and serological investigation of 2019-nCoV infected patients: Implication of multiple shedding routes. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020;9(1):386–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1729071
  14. Liu L, Liu W, Wang S, Zheng, S. A preliminary study on serological assay for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 238 admitted hospital patients. medRxiv. 2020;20031856. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.06.20031856
  15. Teymouri M, Mollazadeh S, Mortazavi H, et al. Recent advances and challenges of RT-PCR tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19. Pathol Res Pract. 2021;221:153443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2021.153443
  16. Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Buitrago-Garciaet D, Simancas-Racines D, et al. False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0242958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242958
  17. Tahamtan A, Ardebili A. Real-time RT-PCR in COVID-19 detection: Issues affecting the results. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2020;20(5):453–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2020.1757437
  18. Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, Boon D, Lessler J. Variation in false-negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction–based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.7326/m20-1495
  19. Xiao SY, Wu Y, Liu H. Evolving status of the 2019 novel coronavirus infection: Proposal of conventional serologic assays for disease diagnosis and infection monitoring. J Med Virol. 2020;92(5):464–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25702
  20. Lee CYP, Lin RTP, Renia L, Ng LFP. Serological approaches for COVID-19: Epidemiologic perspective on surveillance and control. Front Immunol. 2020;11:879. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00879
  21. Zhou P, Yang X-L, Wang XG, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579(7798):270–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
  22. Guo L, Ren L, Yang S, et al. Profiling early humoral response to diagnose novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(15):778–785. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa310
  23. Zhao J, Yuan Q, Wang H, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(16):2027–2034. https://doi.org.10.2139/ssrn.3546052
  24. Cassaniti I, Novazzi F, Giardina F, et al. Performance of VivaDiag COVID-19 IgM/IgG rapid test is inadequate for diagnosis of COVID-19 in acute patients referring to emergency room department. J Med Virol. 2020;92(10):1724–1727. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25800
  25. Du Z, Zhu F, Guo F, Yang B, Wang T. Detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. J Med Virol. 2020;92(10):1735–1738. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25820
  26. Li Z, Yi Y, Luo X, et al. Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. J Med Virol. 2020;92(9):1518–1524. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25727
  27. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, Takwoingi Y, et al. Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;6(6):CD013652. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013652
  28. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA EUA authorized serology test performance [homepage on the Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 May 31]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance
  29. Kenyon C. The serostatus approach to fighting COVID-19. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;94:53–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.080
  30. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
  31. Mbunge E. Effects of COVID-19 in South African health system and society: An explanatory study. Diabetes Metab Syndr: Clin Res Rev. 2020;14(6):1809–1814. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.dsx.2020.09.016
  32. Mina MJ, Parker R, Larremore DB. Rethinking Covid-19 test sensitivity – A strategy for containment. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):e120. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp2025631
  33. South African National Department of Health. Guide to antigen testing for SARS-COV-2 in South Africa [homepage on the Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 May 31]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GUIDE-TO-ANTIGEN-TESTING-FOR-SARS-COV-2-IN-SOUTH-AFRICA_V4_06.07.2021.pdf
  34. Van Caeseele P, Bailey D, Forgie SE, et al. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) serology: Implications for clinical practice, laboratory medicine and public health. CMAJ. 2020;192(34):E973–E979. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.201588
  35. Centres for Disease Control. Interim guidelines for COVID-19 antibody testing [homepage on the Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 July 15]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html
  36. Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Guidance target product profile: Antibody tests to help determine if people have recent infection to SARS-CoV-2: Version 2 [homepage on the Internet]. 2022 [cited 2021 July 15]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-tests-and-testing-kits-for-coronavirus-covid-19-work/target-product-profile-antibody-tests-to-help-determine-if-people-have-recent-infection-to-sars-cov-2-version-2#annex-assay-validation
  37. Brooks ZC, Das S. COVID-19 testing. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020;154(5):575–584. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqaa141
  38. SAHPRA. MD024: Frequently asked questions: Performance evaluation of point-of-care. Pretoria: South African Products Regulatory Authority; 2020. Available from: https://www.sahpra.org.za/document/md024-frequently-asked-questions-performance-evaluation-of-point-of-care-covid-19-serology-antibody-test-kits/
  39. SAHPRA. MD007: Specification criteria for COVID-19 serological test kits. Pretoria: South African Products Regulatory Authority; 2020. Available from: https://www.sahpra.org.za/document/md024-frequently-asked-questions-performance-evaluation-of-point-of-care-covid-19-serology-antibody-test-kits/
  40. Bermingham WH, Wilding T, Beck S, Huissoon A. SARS-CoV-2 serology: Test, test, test, but interpret with caution! Clin Med (Lond). 2020;20(4):365–368. https://doi.org/10.7861%2Fclinmed.2020-0170
  41. FIND Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostic. Find evaluation of SARS-COV-2 antibody (AB) detection tests [homepage of the Internet]. [cited 2021 July 15]. Available from: https://www.finddx.org/covid-19/ab-test-perf/
  42. Goga AE, Bekker LG, Garrett N, et al. Sisonke phase 3B open-label study: Lessons learnt for national and global vaccination scale-up during epidemics. S Afr Med J. 2021 Dec 24;112(2b):13486.
  43. Department of Health. Latest vaccine statistic South Africa. 2022.


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.