Evaluation of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies

Differences in children and adolescents with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cohort study in a Brazilian tertiary referral hospital

OBJECTIVES

To compare demographic/clinical/laboratory/treatments and outcomes among children and adolescents with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that included patients diagnosed with pediatric COVID-19 (aged <18 years) between April 11, 2020 and April 22, 2021. During this period, 102/5,951 (1.7%) of all admissions occurred in neonates, children, and adolescents. Furthermore, 3,962 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection samples were processed in patients aged <18 years, and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 155 (4%) inpatients and outpatients. Six/155 pediatric patients were excluded from the study. Therefore, the final group included 149 children and adolescents (n=97 inpatients and 52 outpatients) with positive SARS-CoV-2 results.

RESULTS

The frequencies of sore throat, anosmia, dysgeusia, headache, myalgia, nausea, lymphopenia, pre-existing chronic conditions, immunosuppressive conditions, and autoimmune diseases were significantly reduced in children and adolescents (p<0.05). Likewise, the frequencies of enoxaparin use (p=0.037), current immunosuppressant use (p=0.008), vasoactive agents (p=0.045), arterial hypotension (p<0.001), and shock (p=0.024) were significantly lower in children than in adolescents. Logistic regression analysis showed that adolescents with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 had increased odds ratios (ORs) for sore throat (OR 13.054; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.750-61.977; p=0.001), nausea (OR 8.875; 95% CI 1.660-47.446; p=0.011), and lymphopenia (OR 3.575; 95% CI 1.355-9.430; p=0.010), but also had less hospitalizations (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.138-0.916; p=0.032). The additional logistic regression analysis on patients with preexisting chronic conditions (n=108) showed that death as an outcome was significantly associated with pediatric severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (OR 22.300; 95% CI 2.341-212.421; p=0.007) and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) (OR 11.261; 95% CI 1.189-106. 581; p=0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases occurred in adolescents. Individuals belonging to this age group had an acute systemic involvement of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pediatric SARS and MIS-C were the most important factors associated with the mortality rate in pediatric chronic conditions with COVID-19.

Human post-infection serological response to the spike and nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-CoV-2

To inform seroepidemiological studies, we characterized the IgG- responses in COVID-19 patients against the two major SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins, spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N). We tested 70 COVID-19 sera collected up to 85 days post-symptom onset and 230 non-COVID-19 sera, including 27 SARS sera from 2003. Although the average SARS-CoV-2 S and N-IgG titers were comparable, N-responses were more variable among individuals. S- and N-assay specificity tested with non-COVID-19 sera were comparable at 97.5% and 97.0%, respectively. Therefore, S will make a better target due to its lower cross-reactive potential and its' more consistent frequency of detection compared to N.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigens Expressed in Plants Detect Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Patients

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has swept the world and poses a significant global threat to lives and livelihoods, with 115 million confirmed cases and at least 2.5 million deaths from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the first year of the pandemic. Developing tools to measure seroprevalence and understand protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is a priority. We aimed to develop a serological assay using plant-derived recombinant viral proteins, which represent important tools in less-resourced settings. Methods: We established an indirect ELISA using the S1 and receptor-binding domain (RBD) portions of the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2, expressed in Nicotiana benthamiana. We measured antibody responses in sera from South African patients (n = 77) who had tested positive by PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Samples were taken a median of 6 weeks after the diagnosis, and the majority of participants had mild and moderate COVID-19 disease. In addition, we tested the reactivity of pre-pandemic plasma (n = 58) and compared the performance of our in-house ELISA with a commercial assay. We also determined whether our assay could detect SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA in saliva. Results: We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulins are readily detectable using recombinant plant-derived viral proteins, in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Reactivity to S1 and RBD was detected in 51 (66%) and 48 (62%) of participants, respectively. Notably, we detected 100% of samples identified as having S1-specific antibodies by a validated, high sensitivity commercial ELISA, and optical density (OD) values were strongly and significantly correlated between the two assays. For the pre-pandemic plasma, 1/58 (1.7%) of samples were positive, indicating a high specificity for SARS-CoV-2 in our ELISA. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG correlated significantly with IgA and IgM responses. Endpoint titers of S1- and RBD-specific immunoglobulins ranged from 1:50 to 1:3,200. S1-specific IgG and IgA were found in saliva samples from convalescent volunteers. Conclusion: We demonstrate that recombinant SARS-CoV-2 proteins produced in plants enable robust detection of SARS-CoV-2 humoral responses. This assay can be used for seroepidemiological studies and to measure the strength and durability of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in infected patients in our setting.

Evaluating ELISA, Immunofluorescence, and Lateral Flow Assay for SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has emerged at the end of 2019. Aside from the detection of viral genome with specific RT-PCR, there is a growing need for reliable determination of the serological status. We aimed at evaluating five SARS-CoV-2 serology assays.

Methods

An in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA), two ELISA kits (EUROIMMUN^® ELISA SARS-CoV-2 IgG and NovaLisa^® SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM) and two lateral flow assays (T-Tek^® SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Antibody Test Kit and Sure Bio-tech^® SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Rapid Test) were compared on 40 serums from RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and 10 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative subjects as controls.

Results

Control subjects tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with all five systems. Estimated sensitivities varied from 35.5 to 71.0% for IgG detection and from 19.4 to 64.5% for IgM detection. For IgG, in-house IFA, EuroImmun, T-Tek and NovaLisa displayed 50–72.5% agreement with other systems except IFA vs EuroImmun and T-Tek vs NovaLisa. Intermethod agreement for IgM determination was between 30 and 72.5%.

Discussion

The overall intermethod agreement was moderate. This inconsistency could be explained by the diversity of assay methods, antigens used and immunoglobulin isotype tested. Estimated sensitivities were low, highlighting the limited value of antibody detection in CoVID-19.

Conclusion

Comparison of five systems for SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies showed limited sensitivity and overall concordance. The place and indications of serological status assessment with currently available tools in the CoVID-19 pandemic need further evaluations.

Development of a Rapid Focus Reduction Neutralization Test Assay for Measuring SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies

SARS-CoV-2 is a recently emerged human coronavirus that has escalated to a pandemic. There are currently no approved vaccines for SARS-CoV-2, which causes severe respiratory illness or death. Defining the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 will be essential for understanding disease progression, long-term immunity, and vaccine efficacy. Here we describe two methods for evaluating the neutralization capacity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The basic protocol is a focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT), which involves immunostaining infected cells with a chromogen deposit readout. The alternate protocol is a modification of the FRNT that uses an infectious clone-derived SARS-CoV-2 virus expressing a fluorescent reporter. These protocols are adapted for use in a high-throughput setting, and are compatible with large-scale vaccine studies or clinical testing. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC Basic Protocol: Focus reduction neutralization test Alternate Protocol: mNeonGreen-based focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT-mNG).

Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals

Serology detection is recognized for its sensitivity in convalescent patients with COVID-19, in comparison with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). This article aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serologic methods for COVID-19 based on assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Ovid, EBSCO for case-control, longitudinal and cohort studies that determined the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests in comparison with NAATs in COVID-19 cases and used QUADAS-2 for quality assessment. Pooled accuracy was analysed using INLA method. A total of 27 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 4 cohort, 16 case-control and 7 longitudinal studies and 4565 participants. Serology tests had the lowest sensitivity at 0-7 days after symptom onset and the highest at >14 days. TAB had a better sensitivity than IgG or IgM only. Using combined nucleocapsid (N) and spike(S) protein had a better sensitivity compared to N or S protein only. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) had a lower sensitivity than enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). Serology tests will play an important role in the clinical diagnosis for later stage COVID-19 patients. ELISA tests, detecting TAB or targeting combined N and S proteins had a higher diagnostic sensitivity compared to other methods.

Diagnostic techniques for COVID-19 and new developments

COVID-19 pandemic is a serious global health issue today due to the rapid human to human transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a new type of coronavirus that causes fatal pneumonia. SARS -CoV-2 has a faster rate of transmission than other coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS and until now there are no approved specific drugs or vaccines for treatment. Thus, early diagnosis is crucial to prevent the extensive spread of the disease. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the most routinely used method until now to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, several other faster and accurate assays are being developed for the diagnosis of COVID-19 aiming to control the spread of infection through the identification of patients and immediate isolation. In this review, we will discuss the various detection methods of the SARS-CoV-2 virus including the recent developments in immunological assays, amplification techniques as well as biosensors.

Evaluation of Orthogonal Testing Algorithm for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing is an important tool in assessment of pandemic progress, contact tracing, and identification of recovered coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. We evaluated an orthogonal testing algorithm (OTA) to improve test specificity in these use cases.

METHODS

A two-step OTA was applied where individuals who initially tested positive were tested with a second test. The first-line test, detecting IgG antibodies to the viral nucleocapsid protein, was validated in 130 samples and the second-line test, detecting IgG antibodies to the viral spike protein in 148 samples. The OTA was evaluated in 4333 clinical patient specimens. The seropositivity rates relative to the SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rates were evaluated from our entire patient population data (n = 5102).

RESULTS

The first-line test resulted in a clinical sensitivity of 96.4% (95% CI; 82.3% to 99.4%), and specificity of 99.0% (95% CI; 94.7% to 99.8%), whereas the second-line test had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI; 87.1% to 100%) and specificity of 98.4% (95% CI; 94.2% to 99.5%). Using the OTA, 78/98 (80%) of initially positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG results were confirmed with a second-line test, while 11/42 (26%) of previously diagnosed COVID-19 patients had no detectable antibodies as long as 94 days post PCR diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that an OTA can be used to identify patients who require further follow-up due to potential SARS CoV-2 IgG false positive results. In addition, serological testing may not be sufficiently sensitive to reliably detect prior COVID-19 infection.

Analytical insights of COVID-19 pandemic

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (2019-nCoV or SARS-CoV-2). Genomic analysis has revealed that bat and pangolin coronaviruses are phylogenetically related to SARS-CoV-2. The actual origin and passage history of the virus are unknown, but human-human transmission of the virus has been confirmed. Several diagnostic techniques have been developed to detect COVID-19 in this prevailing pandemic period. In this review, we provide an overview of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses. The origin, structure, current diagnostic techniques, such as molecular assays based on oligonucleotides, immunoassay-based detection, nanomaterial-based biosensing, and distinctive sample based detection are also discussed. Furthermore, our review highlights the admissible treatment strategies for COVID-19 and future perspectives on the development of biosensing techniques and vaccines for the diagnosis and prevention of the disease, respectively.

Emerging diagnostic tools for detection of COVID-19 and perspective

The COVID-19 caused by a novel coronavirus, named Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has taken a great toll of life affecting lakhs of people around the globe. It was detected initially in Wuhan, China and has spread rapidly to more than 208 countries to date. A range of molecular and immunoassay-based techniques ranging from central laboratory testing to point-of-care tests is urgently needed for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients. Intensive research is going on for the rapid and highly sensitive detection of COVID 19 using varied approach. Hence, this review will focus on the structure of SARS-CoV-2 and recent progress of different detection tool for the detection of COVID-19. This review will also stimulate academics and researcher to update their current technology. Additionally, we also state about the future revolving around the detection of the novel coronavirus. Lately, the way ahead for better management are also put forward.

Testing IgG antibodies against the RBD of SARS-CoV-2 is sufficient and necessary for COVID-19 diagnosis

The COVID-19 pandemic and the fast global spread of the disease resulted in unprecedented decline in world trade and travel. A critical priority is, therefore, to quickly develop serological diagnostic capacity and identify individuals with past exposure to SARS-CoV-2. In this study serum samples obtained from 309 persons infected by SARS-CoV-2 and 324 of healthy, uninfected individuals as well as serum from 7 COVID-19 patients with 4-7 samples each ranging between 1-92 days post first positive PCR were tested by an "in house" ELISA which detects IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity of 47%, 80% and 88% and specificity of 100%, 98% and 98% in detection of IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies, respectively, were observed. IgG antibody levels against the RBD were demonstrated to be up regulated between 1-7 days after COVID-19 detection, earlier than both IgM and IgA antibodies. Study of the antibody kinetics of seven COVID 19 patients revealed that while IgG levels are high and maintained for at least 3 months, IgM and IgA levels decline after a 35-50 days following infection. Altogether, these results highlight the usefulness of the RBD based ELISA, which is both easy and cheap to prepare, to identify COVID-19 patients even at the acute phase. Most importantly our results demonstrate that measuring IgG levels alone is both sufficient and necessary to diagnose past exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

A Cell-Based ELISA to Improve the Serological Analysis of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG

Knowledge of the antibody-mediated immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to understand virus immunogenicity, establish seroprevalence, and determine whether subjects or recovered patients are at risk for infection/reinfection and would therefore benefit from vaccination. Here, we describe a novel and simple cell-ELISA specifically designed to measure viral spike S1-specific IgG produced in vitro by B cells in peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) cultures from a cohort of 45 asymptomatic (n = 24) and symptomatic (n = 21) individuals, with age ranging from 8 to 99 years. All subjects underwent ELISA serological screening twice, at the same time as the cell-ELISA (T2) as well as 35–60 days earlier (T1). Cryopreserved PBMCs of healthy donors obtained years before the COVID-19 pandemic were also included in the analysis. The preliminary results presented here show that out of 45 tested subjects, 16 individuals (35.5%) were positive to the cell-ELISA, 11 (24.5%) were concomitantly positive in the serological screening (T1 and/or T2), and only one person was exclusively positive in ELISA (T1) and negative in cell-ELISA, though values were close to the cutoff. Of note, five individuals (11.2%) tested negative in ELISA but positive in cell-ELISA and thus, they appear to have circulating B cells that produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, likely at levels that are undetectable in the serum, which challenges the negative results of the serological screening. The relative level of in vitro secreted IgG was measurable in positive subjects, ranging from 7 to 50 ng/well. Accordingly, all anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive subjects previously reported moderate to severe symptoms attributable to COVID-19, even though the RT-PCR data were rarely available to confirm viral infection. Overall, the described cell-ELISA might be an effective method for detecting subjects who encountered the virus in the past, and thus helpful to improve serological ELISA tests in the case of undetectable/equivocal circulating IgG levels, and a suitable and improved tool to better evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral immunity in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies in Corsica (France), April and June 2020

Our aim was to assess the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection after the lockdown in a sample of the Corsican population. Between 16 April and 15 June 2020, 2312 residual sera were collected from patients with a blood analysis conducted in one of the participating laboratories. Residual sera obtained from persons of all ages were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulin G (IgG) using the EUROIMMUN enzyme immunoassay kit for semiquantitative detection of IgG antibodies against the S1 domain of viral spike protein (ELISA-S). Borderline and positive samples in ELISA-S were also tested with an in-house virus neutralization test (VNT). Prevalence values were adjusted for sex and age. A total of 1973 residual sera samples were included in the study. The overall seroprevalence based on ELISA-S was 5.27% (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.33–6.35) and 5.46% (4.51–6.57) after adjustment. Sex was not associated with IgG detection. However, significant differences were observed between age groups (p-value = 1 E-5). The highest values were observed among 10–19, 30–39, and 40–49 year-old age groups, ranging around 8–10%. The prevalence of neutralizing antibody titers ≥40 was 3% (2.28–3.84). In conclusion, the present study showed a low seroprevalence for COVID-19 in Corsica, a finding that is in accordance with values reported for other French regions in which the impact of the pandemic was low.

Performance of nucleocapsid and spike-based SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays

There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance along with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the probable causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were evaluated using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of false positive results from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, assays lacked reproducibility. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with the same antigen that was used for coating ELISAs prior to performing the assay), suggesting positive reaction could be attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by the spiking, suggesting positive reaction was not attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the corresponding antigen, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.

Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the nature and durability of the humoral immune response to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

METHODS

We measured antibodies in serum samples from 30,576 persons in Iceland, using six assays (including two pan-immunoglobulin [pan-Ig] assays), and we determined that the appropriate measure of seropositivity was a positive result with both pan-Ig assays. We tested 2102 samples collected from 1237 persons up to 4 months after diagnosis by a quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay. We measured antibodies in 4222 quarantined persons who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and in 23,452 persons not known to have been exposed.

RESULTS

Of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive; antiviral antibody titers assayed by two pan-Ig assays increased during 2 months after diagnosis by qPCR and remained on a plateau for the remainder of the study. Of quarantined persons, 2.3% were seropositive; of those with unknown exposure, 0.3% were positive. We estimate that 0.9% of Icelanders were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and that the infection was fatal in 0.3%. We also estimate that 56% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections in Iceland had been diagnosed with qPCR, 14% had occurred in quarantined persons who had not been tested with qPCR (or who had not received a positive result, if tested), and 30% had occurred in persons outside quarantine and not tested with qPCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis. We estimate that the risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that 44% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland were not diagnosed by qPCR.

Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the nature and durability of the humoral immune response to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

METHODS

We measured antibodies in serum samples from 30,576 persons in Iceland, using six assays (including two pan-immunoglobulin [pan-Ig] assays), and we determined that the appropriate measure of seropositivity was a positive result with both pan-Ig assays. We tested 2102 samples collected from 1237 persons up to 4 months after diagnosis by a quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR) assay. We measured antibodies in 4222 quarantined persons who had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and in 23,452 persons not known to have been exposed.

RESULTS

Of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive; antiviral antibody titers assayed by two pan-Ig assays increased during 2 months after diagnosis by qPCR and remained on a plateau for the remainder of the study. Of quarantined persons, 2.3% were seropositive; of those with unknown exposure, 0.3% were positive. We estimate that 0.9% of Icelanders were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and that the infection was fatal in 0.3%. We also estimate that 56% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections in Iceland had been diagnosed with qPCR, 14% had occurred in quarantined persons who had not been tested with qPCR (or who had not received a positive result, if tested), and 30% had occurred in persons outside quarantine and not tested with qPCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis. We estimate that the risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that 44% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland were not diagnosed by qPCR.

Performance evaluation of five ELISA kits for detecting anti-SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the performances of five commercial ELISA assays (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG.

Methods

Seventy negative control samples (collected before the COVID-19 pandemic) and samples from 101 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected at different time points from symptom onset: ≤7, 8–14 and >14 days) were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and positive and negative predictive values of each assay with RT-PCR. A concordance assessment between the five assays was also conducted. Cross-reactivity with other HCoV, non-HCoV respiratory viruses, non-respiratory viruses, and nuclear antigens was investigated.

Results

Lionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%; 95% CI 92.3–99.8), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%; 95% CI 90.2–99.2), NovaTec (85.7%; 95% CI 75.7–92.1), then AnshLabs (75.7%; 95% CI 64.5–84.2). All ELISA kits cross-reacted with one anti-MERS IgG-positive sample, except Lionex. The sensitivity was low during the early stages of the disease but improved over time. After 14 days from symptom onset, Lionex and NovaTec showed the highest sensitivity at 87.9% (95% CI 72.7–95.2) and 86.4% (95% CI 78.5–91.7), respectively. The agreement with RT-PCR results based on Cohen’s kappa was as follows: Lionex (0.89) > NovaTec (0.70) > Dia.Pro (0.69) > AnshLabs (0.63) > EDI (0.55).

Conclusion

The Lionex and NovaLisa IgG ELISA kits, demonstrated the best overall performance.

Magnetic-Nanosensor-Based Virus and Pathogen Detection Strategies before and during COVID-19

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is a threat to the global healthcare system and economic security. As of July 2020, no specific drugs or vaccines are yet available for COVID-19; a fast and accurate diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2 is essential in slowing the spread of COVID-19 and for efficient implementation of control and containment strategies. Magnetic nanosensing is an emerging topic representing the frontiers of current biosensing and magnetic areas. The past decade has seen rapid growth in applying magnetic tools for biological and biomedical applications. Recent advances in magnetic nanomaterials and nanotechnologies have transformed current diagnostic methods to nanoscale and pushed the detection limit to early-stage disease diagnosis. Herein, this review covers the literature of magnetic nanosensors for virus and pathogen detection before COVID-19. We review popular magnetic nanosensing techniques including magnetoresistance, magnetic particle spectroscopy, and nuclear magnetic resonance. Magnetic point-of-care diagnostic kits are also reviewed aiming at developing plug-and-play diagnostics to manage the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak as well as preventing future epidemics. In addition, other platforms that use magnetic nanomaterials as auxiliary tools for enhanced pathogen and virus detection are also covered. The goal of this review is to inform the researchers of diagnostic and surveillance platforms for SARS-CoV-2 and their performances.

Low Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies during Systematic Antibody Screening and Serum Responses in Patients after COVID-19 in a German Transplant Center

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 denotes a global health issue. Data regarding COVID-19 incidence in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) are sparse. From 19 March to 19 May 2020, we performed a systematic screening for COVID-19 in KTR. Tests included serum analysis for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using S protein-based immunofluorescence, anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), and/or quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) from nasal-throat swabs. Outpatient serum samples from KTR with PCR confirmed COVID-19, and swab samples from recipients (+donors) undergoing kidney transplantation were analyzed. Out of 223 samples from outpatients, 13 patients were positive with solely anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgA and 3 with both anti-IgA and anti-IgG. In total, 53 patients were symptomatic in the past, but positive results could be found in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. After an in depth analysis using immunofluorescence and neutralization tests in 2 KTR, recent COVID-19 infection remained highly suspicious. Apart from outpatient visits, only 5 out of 2044 KTR were symptomatic and tested positive via PCR, of which 4 recovered and one died. All patients showed seroconversion during the course of the disease. This study demonstrated a low seroprevalence in a German KTR cohort, and seroconversion of IgA and IgG after COVID-19 could be demonstrated. Effective containment strategies enabled us to continue our transplant program.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Targeting Nucleocapsid or Spike Protein by Four High-Throughput Immunoassays Authorized for Emergency Use

A total of 1,200 serum samples that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody using the Abbott Architect immunoassay targeting the nucleocapsid protein were run in 3 SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays targeting spike proteins (DiaSorin Liaison, Ortho Vitros, and Euroimmun). Consensus-positive and consensus-negative interpretations were defined as qualitative agreement in at least 3 of the 4 assays. Agreement of the 4 individual assays with a consensus-negative interpretation (n = 610) ranged from 96.7% to 100%, and agreement with a consensus-positive interpretation (n = 584) ranged from 94.3% to 100%. Laboratory-developed inhibition assays were utilized to evaluate 49 consensus-negative samples that were positive in only one assay; true-positive reactivity was confirmed in only 2 of these 49 (4%) samples. These findings demonstrate very high levels of agreement among 4 SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays authorized for emergency use, regardless of antigen target or assay format. Although false-positive reactivity was identified, its occurrence was rare (no more than 1.7% of samples for a given assay).

Evaluation of High-Throughput Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2

Serologic methods are an important part of a clinical laboratory’s portfolio of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests and are essential to the broader response to coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19), including epidemiological studies and vaccine development. There are currently a number of commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests with emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, H.

Serologic methods are an important part of a clinical laboratory’s portfolio of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) tests and are essential to the broader response to coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19), including epidemiological studies and vaccine development. There are currently a number of commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests with emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, H. E. Prince, T. S. Givens, M. Lapé-Nixon, N. J. Clarke, et al. (J Clin Microbiol 58:e01742-20, https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01742-20, 2020) report the results of their evaluation of the agreement of 4 high-throughput EUA tests for SARS-CoV-2 IgG: Abbott Architect, DiaSorin Liaison, Euroimmun, and Ortho Vitros. They showed excellent agreement between the tests and rare false-positive reactivity for all tests.

Analytical and Clinical Evaluation of the Automated Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assay on the Roche cobas e602 Analyzer

Objectives

To evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the automated Elecsys anti–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody (Elecsys Ab) assay on the Roche cobas e602 analyzer. With the ongoing global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, widespread and routine serologic testing of SARS-CoV-2 remains a pressing need. To better understand its epidemiologic spread and to support policies aimed at curtailing further infections, reliable serologic testing is crucial for providing insight into the dynamics of the spread of COVID-19 on a population level.

Methods

The presence of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in polymerase chain reaction–positive, confirmed COVID-19 patient samples was determined using the Elecsys Ab assay on the Roche cobas e602 analyzer. The precision and cross-reactivity of the Elecsys Ab assay were characterized and its performance was compared against the EuroImmun IgA/IgG antibody (EuroImmun Ab) assay. Calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were assessed.

Results

The Elecsys Ab assay demonstrated good precision, had no cross-reactivity with other viral samples, and showed 100% concordance with the EuroImmun Ab assay. Excellent clinical performance with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was observed.

Conclusions

The Elecsys Ab assay is a precise and highly reliable automated platform for clinical detection of seropositivity in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Healthcare Workers Bioresource: Study outline and baseline characteristics of a prospective healthcare worker cohort to study immune protection and pathogenesis in COVID-19

Background: Most biomedical research has focused on sampling COVID-19 patients presenting to hospital with advanced disease, with less focus on the asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic. We established a bioresource with serial sampling of health care workers (HCWs) designed to obtain samples before and during mainly mild disease, with follow-up sampling to evaluate the quality and duration of immune memory. Methods: We conducted a prospective study on HCWs from three hospital sites in London, initially at a single centre (recruited just prior to first peak community transmission in London), but then extended to multiple sites 3 weeks later (recruitment still ongoing, target n=1,000). Asymptomatic participants attending work complete a health questionnaire, and provide a nasal swab (for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by RT-PCR tests) and blood samples (mononuclear cells, serum, plasma, RNA and DNA are biobanked) at 16 weekly study visits, and at 6 and 12 months. Results: Preliminary baseline results for the first 731 HCWs (400 single-centre, 331 multicentre extension) are presented. Mean age was 38±11 years; 67% are female, 31% nurses, 20% doctors, and 19% work in intensive care units. COVID-19-associated risk factors were: 37% black, Asian or minority ethnicities; 18% smokers; 13% obesity; 11% asthma; 7% hypertension and 2% diabetes mellitus. At baseline, 41% reported symptoms in the preceding 2 weeks. Preliminary test results from the initial cohort (n=400) are available: PCR at baseline for SARS-CoV-2 was positive in 28 of 396 (7.1%, 95% CI 4.9-10.0%) and 15 of 385 (3.9%, 2.4-6.3%) had circulating IgG antibodies. Conclusions: This COVID-19 bioresource established just before the peak of infections in the UK will provide longitudinal assessments of incident infection and immune responses in HCWs through the natural time course of disease and convalescence. The samples and data from this bioresource are available to academic collaborators by application  https://covid-consortium.com/application-for-samples/.

Laboratory diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

The first laboratory confirmed case of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Australia was in Victoria on 25 January 2020 in a man returning from Wuhan city, Hubei province, the People's Republic of China. This was followed by three cases in New South Wales the following day. The Australian Government activated the Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan for Novel Coronavirus on 27 February 2020 in anticipation of a pandemic. Subsequently, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern followed by a pandemic on 30 January 2020 and 11 March 2020, respectively. Laboratory testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for COVID-19, is key in identifying infected persons to guide timely public health actions of contact tracing and patient isolation to limit transmission of infection. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current laboratory diagnostic methods for SARS-CoV-2, including nucleic acid testing, serology, rapid antigen detection and antibody tests, virus isolation and whole genome sequencing. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the different diagnostic tests are presented, as well as their value in different clinical, infection control and public health contexts. We also describe the challenges in the provision of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in Australia, a country with a relatively low COVID-19 incidence in the first pandemic wave but in which prevalence could rapidly change.

Recent advances, approaches and challenges in targeting pathways for potential COVID-19 vaccines development

During the COVID-19 pandemic in a modern era, there is a global consensus on the need for the rapid development of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 for effective and sustainable control. Developing these vaccines is fundamental to public health. This urgent need is supported by the scientific explosion in structural and genomic biology that facilitates the urgent development of an ideal COVID-19 vaccine, using new pathways to facilitate its large-scale development, testing, and manufacture. Here, we summarize the types of COVID-19 candidate vaccines, their current stage in early testing in human clinical trials, and the challenges for their implementation.

Antibody detection assays for COVID-19 diagnosis: an early overview

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not only commenced a global health emergency but also agitated various aspects of humanity. During this period of crisis, researchers over the world have ramped their efforts to constrain the disease in all possible ways, whether it is vaccination, therapy or diagnosis. Because the spread of the disease has not yet elapsed, sharing the ongoing research findings could be the key to disease control and management. An early and efficient diagnosis could leverage the outcome until a successful vaccine is developed. Both in-house and commercial kits are the preferred molecular tests being used worldwide in the COVID-19 diagnosis. However, the limitation of high prices and lengthy procedures impede their use for mass testing. Keeping the constant rise of infection in mind, the search for an alternative test that is cost-effective, simple and suitable for large-scale testing and surveillance is the need of the hour. One such alternative could be immunological tests. In the last few months, a deluge of immunological rapid tests have been developed and validated across the globe. The objective of this review is to share the diagnostic performance of various immunological assays reported so far in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 case detection. We consolidate the studies (published and preprints) related to serological tests such as chemiluminescence, enzyme-linked and lateral flow-based point-of-care tests in COVID-19 diagnosis and update the current scenario. This review aims to be an add-on in COVID-19 research and will contribute to congregation of the evidence for decision making.

Evaluation of the Xiamen AmonMed Biotechnology rapid diagnostic test COVID-19 IgM/IgG test kit (Colloidal gold)

Introduction

To efficiently monitor the COVID-19 pandemic for surveillance purposes, reliable serological rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are desirable for settings where well-established high-throughput bench-top solutions are not available. Here, we have evaluated such an RDT.

Methods

We have assessed the Xiamen AmonMed Biotechnology COVID-19 IgM/IgG test kit (Colloidal gold) and the EUROIMMUN benchtop assay with serum samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 disease. Samples from patients with Epstein-Barr-virus (EBV) infection and blood donors were used for specificity testing.

Results

For the colloid gold rapid test and the EUROIMMUN assay, the study indicated overall sensitivity of 15.2% and 67.4%, respectively, while specificity of 99.0% and 97.9% with the blood donor sera, as well as 100% and 96.8% with the EBV-patients, were observed, respectively. An association of the time period between positive PCR results and serum acquisition with serological test positivity could be observed for the immunologlobulin G subclass of the EUROIMMUN assay only.

Conclusions

In spite of acceptable specificity of the assessed RDT, the detected poor sensitivity leaves room for improvement. The test results remain difficult to interpret and therefore the RDT can currently not be recommended for routine diagnostic or surveillance use.

Development, clinical translation, and utility of a COVID-19 antibody test with qualitative and quantitative readouts

The COVID-19 global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to place an immense burden on societies and healthcare systems. A key component of COVID-19 control efforts is serologic testing to determine the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and quantify individual immune responses to prior infection or vaccination. Here, we describe a laboratory-developed antibody test that uses readily available research-grade reagents to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in patient blood samples with high sensitivity and specificity. We further show that this test affords the estimation of viral spike-specific IgG titers from a single sample measurement, thereby providing a simple and scalable method to measure the strength of an individual's immune response. The accuracy, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness of this test makes it an excellent option for clinical deployment in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical performance of four immunoassays for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, including a prospective analysis for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a real-life routine care setting

•

The sensitivity of evaluated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays ranged from 95.6% to 97.8%.

•

The specificity was 92.1% for Euroimmun IgG and ≥ 98.9% for Abbott IgG, Wantai Ab and DiaPro confirmation IgG assays.

•

A lack of specificity was observed for low positive Euroimmun IgG results (ratio<5) and inconclusive RT-PCR results.

•

A lack of sensitivity was observed for early serology (<14 days) or late RT-PCR testing (>30 days).

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of four SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays and their contribution in routine care for the diagnosis of COVID-19, in order to benefit of robust data before their extensive use.

Methods

The clinical performance of Euroimmun ELISA SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA, and DiaPro COVID-19 IgG confirmation were evaluated in the context of both a retrospective and a prospective analysis of COVID-19 patients. The retrospective analysis included plasma samples from 63 COVID-19 patients and 89 control (pre-pandemic) patients. The prospective study included 203 patients who tested either negative (n = 181) or positive (n = 22) by RT-PCR before serology sampling.

Results

The specificity was 92.1 %, 98.9 %, 100 % and 98.9 % and the sensitivity 14 days after onset of symptoms was 95.6 %, 95.6 %, 97.8 % and 95.6 % for Euroimmun IgG, Abbott IgG, Wantai Ab, and DiaPro IgG confirmation SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, respectively. The low specificity of Euroimmun IgG (for ratio <5) was not confirmed in routine care setting (98.5 % negative agreement). Serology was complementary to RT-PCR in routine care and lead to identification of false positive (Ct>38, <2 targets detected) and false negative RT-PCR results (>1 month post onset of symptoms).

Conclusions

Serology was complementary to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 at least 14 days after onset of symptoms. First line serology testing can be performed with Wantai Ab or Abbott IgG assays, while DiaPro IgG confirmation assay can be used as an efficient confirmation assay.

Collaborative networks enable the rapid establishment of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 during nationwide lockdown in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Serological assays that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are critical for determining past infection and investigating immune responses in the COVID-19 pandemic. We established ELISA-based immunoassays using locally produced antigens when New Zealand went into a nationwide lockdown and the supply chain of diagnostic reagents was a widely held domestic concern. The relationship between serum antibody binding measured by ELISA and neutralising capacity was investigated using a surrogate viral neutralisation test (sVNT).

METHODS

A pre-pandemic sera panel (n = 113), including respiratory infections with symptom overlap with COVID-19, was used to establish assay specificity. Sera from PCR‑confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (n = 21), and PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 (n = 82) that presented to the two largest hospitals in Auckland during the lockdown period were included. A two-step IgG ELISA based on the receptor binding domain (RBD) and spike protein was adapted to determine seropositivity, and neutralising antibodies that block the RBD/hACE‑2 interaction were quantified by sVNT.

RESULTS

The calculated cut-off (>0.2) in the two-step ELISA maximised specificity by classifying all pre-pandemic samples as negative. Sera from all PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were classified as seropositive by ELISA ≥7 days after symptom onset. There was 100% concordance between the two-step ELISA and the sVNT with all 7+ day sera from PCR‑confirmed COVID-19 patients also classified as positive with respect to neutralising antibodies. Of the symptomatic PCR-negative cohort, one individual with notable travel history was classified as positive by two-step ELISA and sVNT, demonstrating the value of serology in detecting prior infection.

CONCLUSIONS

These serological assays were established and assessed at a time when human activity was severely restricted in New Zealand. This was achieved by generous sharing of reagents and technical expertise by the international scientific community, and highly collaborative efforts of scientists and clinicians across the country. The assays have immediate utility in supporting clinical diagnostics, understanding transmission in high-risk cohorts and underpinning longer‑term 'exit' strategies based on effective vaccines and therapeutics.

Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays in India

Introduction

IgG immunoassays have been developed and used widely for clinical samples and serosurveys for SARS-CoV2, with most detecting antibodies against the spike/receptor-binding-domain or nucleocapsid. Limited information is available on comparative evaluation of IgG immunoassays against a clinical reference standard, i.e., RT-PCR positivity with >20 days of illness. This study addresses the need for comparing clinical performance of IgG immunoassays with respect to this alternate reference standard.

Methods

We compared the performance of three immunoassays, an in-house RBD assay, and two commercial assays, the Diasorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S1 IgG CLIA which detects antibodies against S1/S2 domains of the Spike protein and the Zydus Kavach assay based on inactivated virus using a well-characterized panel of sera. 379 sera and plasma samples from RTPCR positive individuals >20 days of illness in symptomatic or RT-PCR positivity in asymptomatic individuals and 184 samples collected prior to 2019 were used for assay evaluation.

Results

The sensitivity of the assays were 84.7 (95 %CI 80.6–88.1), 82.6 (95 %CI 78.3–86.2) and 75.7 (95 %CI 71.0–79.9) respectively for RBD, LIAISON and Kavach. Kavach and the in-house RBD ELISA showed a specificity of 99.5 % and 100 %, respectively. The RBD and LIAISON (S1/S2) assays showed high agreement (94.7 %; 95 %CI: 92.0, 96.6) and were able to correctly identify more positive sera/plasma than Kavach.

Conclusion

Independent comparisons support the evaluation of performance characteristics of immunoassays. All three assays are suitable for serosurveillance studies, but in low prevalence sites, estimation of exposure may require adjustment based on our findings.

Severe clinical spectrum with high mortality in pediatric patients with COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To assess the outcomes of pediatric patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with or without multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 471 samples collected from 371 patients (age<18 years) suspected of having severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The study group comprised 66/371 (18%) laboratory-confirmed pediatric COVID-19 patients: 61 (92.5%) patients tested positive on real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction tests for SARS-CoV-2, and 5 (7.5%) patients tested positive on serological tests. MIS-C was diagnosed according to the criteria of the Center for Disease Control.

RESULTS

MIS-C was diagnosed in 6/66 (9%) patients. The frequencies of diarrhea, vomiting, and/or abdominal pain (67% vs. 22%, p=0.034); pediatric SARS (67% vs. 13%, p=0.008); hypoxemia (83% vs. 23%, p=0.006); and arterial hypotension (50% vs. 3%, p=0.004) were significantly higher in patients with MIS-C than in those without MIS-C. The frequencies of C-reactive protein levels >50 mg/L (83% vs. 25%, p=0.008) and D-dimer levels >1000 ng/mL (100% vs. 40%, p=0.007) and the median D-dimer, troponin T, and ferritin levels (p<0.05) were significantly higher in patients with MIS-C. The frequencies of pediatric intensive care unit admission (100% vs. 60%, p=0.003), mechanical ventilation (83% vs. 7%, p<0.001), vasoactive agent use (83% vs. 3%, p<0.001), shock (83% vs. 5%, p<0.001), cardiac abnormalities (100% vs. 2%, p<0.001), and death (67% vs. 3%, p<0.001) were also significantly higher in patients with MIS-C. Similarly, the frequencies of oxygen therapy (100% vs. 33%, p=0.003), intravenous immunoglobulin therapy (67% vs. 2%, p<0.001), aspirin therapy (50% vs. 0%, p<0.001), and current acute renal replacement therapy (50% vs. 2%, p=0.002) were also significantly higher in patients with MIS-C. Logistic regression analysis showed that the presence of MIS-C was significantly associated with gastrointestinal manifestations [odds ratio (OR)=10.98; 95%CI (95% confidence interval)=1.20-100.86; p=0.034] and hypoxemia [OR=16.85; 95%CI=1.34-211.80; p=0.029]. Further univariate analysis showed a positive association between MIS-C and death [OR=58.00; 95%CI=6.39-526.79; p<0.0001].

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with MIS-C had a severe clinical spectrum with a high mortality rate. Our study emphasizes the importance of investigating MIS-C in pediatric patients with COVID-19 presenting with gastrointestinal involvement and hypoxemia.

Most chilblains observed during the COVID-19 outbreak occur in patients who are negative for COVID-19 on polymerase chain reaction and serology testing

Background

Acral lesions, mainly chilblains, are the most frequently reported cutaneous lesions associated with COVID‐19. In more than 80% of patients tested, nasopharyngeal swabs were negative on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) for SARS‐CoV‐2 when performed, and serology was generally not performed.

Methods

A national survey was launched on 30 March 2020 by the French Society of Dermatology asking physicians to report cases of skin manifestations in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 by using a standardized questionnaire. We report the results for acral manifestations.

Results

We collected 311 cases of acral manifestations [58.5% women, median age 25.7 years (range 18–39)]. The most frequent clinical presentation (65%) was typical chilblains. In total, 93 cases (30%) showed clinical suspicion of COVID‐19, 67 (22%) had only less specific infectious symptoms and 151 (49%) had no clinical signs preceding or during the course of acral lesions. Histology of skin biopsies was consistent with chilblains. Overall, 12 patients showed significant immunological abnormalities. Of the 150 (48%) patients who were tested, 10 patients were positive. Seven of 121 (6%) RT‐PCR‐tested patients were positive for SARS‐CoV‐2, and five of 75 (7%) serology‐tested patients had IgG anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2. Tested/untested patients or those with/without confirmed COVID‐19 did not differ in age, sex, history or acral lesion clinical characteristics.

Conclusions

The results of this survey do not rule out that SARS‐CoV‐2 could be directly responsible for some cases of chilblains, but we found no evidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the large majority of patients with acral lesions during the COVID‐19 lockdown period in France.

What is already known about this topic?

About 1000 cases of acral lesions, mainly chilblains, were reported during the COVID‐19 outbreak.

Chilblains were reported to occur in young people within 2 weeks of infectious signs, which were mild when present.

Most cases did not have COVID‐19 confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR), and few serology results were available.

What does this study add?

Among 311 patients with acral lesions, mainly chilblains, during the COVID‐19 lockdown period in France, the majority of patients tested had no evidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Overall, 70 of 75 patients were seronegative for SARS‐Cov‐2 serology and 114 of 121 patients were negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 RT‐PCR.

Specificity and Performance of Nucleocapsid and Spike-based SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays

There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this paper, we have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance in comparison with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were compared using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of positive signals from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, positivity varied with assay repetition. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with analyte prior to performing the assay). In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by analyte spiking. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the analyte, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.

Analytical and clinical validation of an ELISA for specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies

The development of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) serological tests is massive. The external validation of their performance is needed before use in clinical routine practice. Our study aims at assessing the analytical and clinical performance of two enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay tests detecting antibodies directed against the virus nucleocapsid protein: The NovaLisa SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) test (NovaTec) allowing a separate detection of each antibody and the Platelia SARS‐CoV‐2 Total Ab test (Bio‐Rad) detecting total antibodies (IgM, IgA, and IgG). Two‐hundred and eight coronavirus disease 2019 samples from 48 quantitative reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐qPCR) confirmed patients were used to perform the sensitivity analysis. Non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 sera (n = 79) with a potential cross‐reaction to SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoassays were included in the specificity analysis. In addition, using receiver operator characteristic curves, adapted cut‐off for improvement of the performances were proposed. The kinetics of these antibodies was also assessed over 8 weeks. Two weeks after the RT‐qPCR positive detection, the NovaLisa test shows a sensitivity and specificity of 94.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.1%‐98.6%) and 96.2% (95% CI: 89.4%‐98.7%) for IgG, of 89.7% (95% CI: 76.4%‐95.9%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%‐98.8%) for IgA, and of 48.7% (95% CI: 33.9%‐63.8%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%‐99.8%) for IgM. With the Platelia system, the specificity and sensitivity were 97.4% (95% CI: 92.1%‐99.7%) and 94.9% (95% CI: 87.7%‐98.0%) for total antibodies using the adapted cut‐offs. The NovaLisa and the Platelia tests have satisfactory analytical performances. The clinical performances are excellent for IgG, IgA, and total antibodies especially if the cut‐off is optimized.

The sensitivity and the specificity of the NovaLisa (for immunoglobulin G [IgG] and immunoglobulin A [IgA]) and the Platelia were excellent.

Cut‐off optimizations improve the clinical performances of both assays.

Over a period of 8 weeks, IgM and IgA gradually disappeared while IgG remain persistent.

Clinical evaluation of five different automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients

•

Clinical performance of five different commercially available automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests.

•

No overlap of “false” positive samples between different serology assays was observed.

•

The ability to rule out acute SARS-CoV-2 infection at hospital admission with serology is limited.

Background

The global market for SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays is becoming ever more crowded with antibody-tests of various formats, targets and technologies, careful evaluation is crucial for understanding the implications of individual test results. Here, we evaluate the clinical performance of five automated immunoassays on a set of clinical samples.

Methods

Serum/plasma samples of 75 confirmed COVID-19 patients and 320 pre-pandemic serum samples of healthy blood donors were subjected to two IgG and three total antibody SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays. All test setups were automated workflows.

Results

Positivity of assays (onset of symptoms > 10 days) ranged between 68.4 % and 81.6 % (Diasorin 68.4 %, Euroimmun 70.3 %, Siemens 73.7 %, Roche 79.0 % and Wantai 81.6 %). All examined assays demonstrated high specificity of >99 % (Euroimmun, Diasorin: 99.1 %, Wantai: 99.4 %) but only two reached levels above 99.5 % (Roche: 99.7 %, Siemens 100 %). Interestingly, there was no overlap in false positive results between the assays. The strongest correlation of quantitative results was observed between the Diasorin and Euroimmun IgG tests (r² = 0.76). Overall, we observed no difference in the distribution of test results between female and male patients (p-values: 0.18−0.87). A significant difference between severely versus critically ill patients was demonstrated for the Euroimmun, Diasorin, Wantai and Siemens assays (p-values: < 0.041).

Conclusion

All assays showed good clinical performance. Our data confirm that orthogonal test strategies as recommended by the CDC can enhance clinical specificity. However, the suboptimal rates of test positivity found at time of hospitalization in this cohort underline the importance of molecular diagnostics to rule out/confirm active infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with eight commercially available immunoassays

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 numerous antibody assays have become available, demonstrating different performance characteristics. This study focused on a quantitative correlation between different commercial assays and a neutralization test (NT). Comparative data is needed as a basis for the production of convalescent plasma and potential interpretations COVID-19 immunity. Sera of 100 SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma donors were collected and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were characterized using three different IgG-ELISAs (EUROIMMUN IgG and NCP-IgG ELISA, Wantai ELISA), two CLIA (Elecsys, LIAISON) and two lateral flow tests (MEDsan IgM/IgG-Rapid-Test, Wantai Rapid Test) and subsequently correlated to neutralization titers. The Wantai ELISA and the Elecsys provide the highest sensitivities in this sample (98 and 95 percent respectively). Titers with the best overall quantitative correlation to the NT titer were obtained with the Euroimmun IgG ELISA assay (Rho=0.759) and the Wantai ELISA assay (Rho=0.729). An infection without fever and negative or weakly positive reactions in the Wantai Rapid test were negative predictive factors for NT titers >1:200 (negative predictive value of 92 % and 92 % respectively, combination of both 100 %). The Wantai ELISA titer could be a suitable substitute for NT. An adequate pooling strategy of plasma units additionally could compensate deviations of individual antibody titers.

Is serological response to SARS-CoV-2 preserved in MS patients on ocrelizumab treatment? A case report

The emergency represented by the COVID-19 pandemic represents a new challenge for clinicians who deal with autoimmune diseases because of patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. Few cases of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients receiving ocrelizumab who contracted COVID-19 with a benign course have recently been published.

We present the case of a MS patient with mild COVID-19 who developed SARS-CoV-2 specific IgA without IgG ten weeks after infection. Patients on B-cell depleting drugs have a reduced antibody immune response to viral neoantigens. A relative sparing of mucosal-associated lymphoid tissues (MALT) could be responsible for IgA response in our patient.