Rapid development of COVID-19 rapid diagnostics for low resource settings: accelerating delivery through transparency, responsiveness, and open collaboration
Adams, E. R.; Augustin, Y.; Byrne, R. L.; Clark, D. J.; Cocozza, M.; Cubas-Atienzar, A. I.; Cuevas, L. E.; Cusinato, M.; Davies, B. M. O.; Davies, M.; Davies, P.; Duvoix, A.; Eckersley, N. M.; Edwards, T.; Fletcher, T.; Fraser, A. j.; Garrod, G.; Hadcocks, L.; Hu, Q.; johnson, M.; Kay, G. A.; Keymer, K.; Kirwan, D.; Klekotko, K.; Lewis, Z.; Mason, J.; Mensah-Kane, J.; Menzies, S.; Monahan, I.; Moore, C. M.; Nebe-von-Caron, G.; Owen, S. I.; Planche, T.; Sainter, C.; Schouten, J.; Staines, H. M.; Turtle, L.; Williams, C.; Wilkins, J.; Woolston, K.; Sall, A. A.; Fitchett, J. R. A.; Krishna, S.
Show 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 Mologics 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.
Matching journals
The top 13 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A new role for Biofoundries in rapid prototyping, development, and validation of automated clinical diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 92%
- Rapid development and field evaluation of a portable CRISPR-based assay for Mpox during the 2025 Sierra Leone outbreak 91%
- Development and Implementation of a scalable and versatile test for COVID-19 diagnostics in rural communities 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A point-of-care lateral flow assay for neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 91%
- SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Detection Tests: test performance during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination 91%
- Accuracy of four lateral flow immunoassays for anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a head-to-head comparative study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Accuracy of Rapid Antigen Testing across SARS-CoV-2 Variants 90%
- Adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen-detection testing for longitudinal mass screening in the workplace 90%
- The role of the SwissCovid digital proximity tracing app during the pandemic response: results for the Canton of Zurich 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.