Rapid development of COVID-19 rapid diagnostics for low resource settings: accelerating delivery through transparency, responsiveness, and open collaboration

  1. Emily R Adams
  2. Yolanda Augustin
  3. Rachel L Byrne
  4. David J Clark
  5. Michael Cocozza
  6. Ana I Cubas-Atienzar
  7. Luis E. Cuevas
  8. Martina Cusinato
  9. Benedict M O Davies
  10. Mark Davis
  11. Paul Davis
  12. Annelyse Duvoix
  13. Nicholas M Eckersley
  14. Thomas Edwards
  15. Tom Fletcher
  16. Alice J Fraser
  17. Gala Garrod
  18. Linda Hadcocks
  19. Qinxue Hu
  20. Michael Johnson
  21. Grant A Kay
  22. Katherine Keymer
  23. Daniela Kirwan
  24. Kesja Klekotko
  25. Zawditu Lewis
  26. Jenifer Mason
  27. Josie Mensah-Kane
  28. Stefanie Menzies
  29. Irene Monahan
  30. Catherine M Moore
  31. Gerhard Nebe-von-Caron
  32. Sophie I Owen
  33. Tim Planche
  34. Chris Sainter
  35. James Schouten
  36. Henry M Staines
  37. Lance Turtle
  38. Chris Williams
  39. John Wilkins
  40. Kevin Woolston
  41. Amadou Alpha Sall
  42. Joseph R A Fitchett
  43. Sanjeev Krishna

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Here we describe an open and transparent consortium for the rapid development of COVID-19 rapid diagnostics tests. We report diagnostic accuracy data on the Mologic manufactured IgG COVID-19 ELISA on known positive serum samples and on a panel of known negative respiratory and viral serum samples pre-December 2019.

In January, Mologic, embarked on a product development pathway for COVID-19 diagnostics focusing on ELISA and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), with anticipated funding from Wellcome Trust and DFID.

834 clinical samples from known COVID-19 patients and hospital negative controls were tested on Mologic’s IgG ELISA. The reported sensitivity on 270 clinical samples from 124 prospectively enrolled patients was 94% (95% CI: 89.60% - 96.81%) on day 10 or more post laboratory diagnosis, and 96% (95% CI: 84.85% - 99.46%) between 14–21 days post symptom onset. A specificity panel comprising 564 samples collected pre-December 2019 were tested to include most common respiratory pathogens, other types of coronavirus, and flaviviruses. Specificity in this panel was 97% (95% CI: 95.65% - 98.50%).

This is the first in a series of Mologic products for COVID-19, which will be deployed for COVID-19 diagnosis, contact tracing and sero-epidemiological studies to estimate disease burden and transmission with a focus on ensuring access, affordability, and availability to low-resource settings.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.29.20082099: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.29.20082099 on medRxiv