Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. Methods: We tested plasma for COVID (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; SARS-CoV-2) IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different LFIA devices. We used a panel of plasma samples from individuals who have had confirmed COVID infection based on a PCR result (n=40), and pre-pandemic negative control samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142). Results: ELISA detected IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with a confirmed history of COVID infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs. 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 COVID-positive individuals tested ≥10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%). IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. Conclusions: Currently available commercial LFIA devices do not perform sufficiently well for individual patient applications. However, ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following first symptoms.

Background:The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for robust antibody detection approaches to support diagnostics, vaccine development, safe individual release from quarantine and population lock-down exit strategies. The early promise of lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices has been questioned following concerns about sensitivity and specificity. Methods:We used a panel of plasma samples designated SARS-CoV-2 positive (from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; n=40) and negative (samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142)). We tested plasma for SARS-Cov-2 IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different commercially available LFIA devices. Results: ELISA detected SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with an RT-PCR-confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 RT-PCRpositive individuals tested ≥10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%).IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. Conclusions:The performance of current LFIA devices is inadequate for most individual patient applications. ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following symptoms onset.

ObjectivesWe investigated machinelearningbased identification of presymptomatic COVID-19 and detection of infection-related changes in physiology using a wearable device.DesignInterim analysis of a prospective cohort study.Setting, participants and interventionsParticipants from a national cohort study in Liechtenstein were included. Nightly they wore the Ava-bracelet that measured respiratory rate (RR), heart rate (HR), HR variability (HRV), wrist-skin temperature (WST) and skin perfusion. SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed by molecular and/or serological assays.ResultsA total of 1.5 million hours of physiological data were recorded from 1163 participants (mean age 44±5.5 years). COVID-19 was confirmed in 127 participants of which, 66 (52%) had worn their device from baseline to symptom onset (SO) and were included in this analysis. Multi-level modelling revealed significant changes in five (RR, HR, HRV, HRV ratio and WST) device-measured physiological parameters during the incubation, presymptomatic, symptomatic and recovery periods of COVID-19 compared with baseline. The training set represented an 8-day long instance extracted from day 10 to day 2 before SO. The training set consisted of 40 days measurements from 66 participants. Based on a random split, the test set included 30% of participants and 70% were selected for the training set. The developed long short-term memory (LSTM) based recurrent neural network (RNN) algorithm had a recall (sensitivity) of 0.73 in the training set and 0.68 in the testing set when detecting COVID-19 up to 2 days prior to SO.ConclusionWearable sensor technology can enable COVID-19 detection during the presymptomatic period. Our proposed RNN algorithm identified 68% of COVID-19 positive participants 2 days prior to SO and will be further trained and validated in a randomised, single-blinded, two-period, two-sequence crossover trial.Trial registration numberISRCTN51255782; Pre-results.

Evaluating and testing hydration status is increasingly requested by rehabilitation, sport, military and performance-related activities. Besides commonly used biochemical hydration assessment markers within blood and urine, which have their advantages and limitations in collection and evaluating hydration status, there are other potential markers present within saliva, sweat or tear. This literature review focuses on body fluids saliva, sweat and tear compared to blood and urine regarding practicality and hydration status influenced by fluid restriction and/or physical activity. The selected articles included healthy subjects, biochemical hydration assessment markers and a well-described (de)hydration procedure. The included studies (n=16) revealed that the setting and the method of collecting respectively accessing body fluids are particularly important aspects to choose the optimal hydration marker. To obtain a sample of saliva is one of the simplest ways to collect body fluids. During exercise and heat exposures, saliva composition might be an effective index but seems to be highly variable. The collection of sweat is a more extensive and time-consuming technique making it more difficult to evaluate dehydration and to make a statement about the hydration status at a particular time. The collection procedure of tear fluid is easy to access and causes very little discomfort to the subject. Tear osmolarity increases with dehydration in parallel to alterations in plasma osmolality and urine-specific gravity. But at the individual level, its sensitivity has to be further determined.