Performance of an automated chemiluminescence SARS-CoV-2 IG-G assay

Reflections on COVID-19: A Literature Review of SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Although the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has ended, there are still many important lessons we can learn, as the pandemic profoundly affected every area of laboratory practice. During the pandemic, extensive changes to laboratory staffing had to be implemented, as many healthcare institutions required regular screening of all healthcare staff. Several studies examined the effectiveness of different screening regimens and concluded that repeated testing, even with lower sensitivity tests, could rival the performance of gold-standard RT-PCR testing in the detection of new cases. Many assay evaluations were performed both in the earlier and later periods of the pandemic. They included both nucleocapsid/spike antibodies and automated antigen assays. Early in the pandemic, it was generally agreed that the initial nucleocapsid antibody assays had poor sensitivity when used before 14 days of disease onset, with total or IgG antibodies being preferred over the use of IgM. Spike antibody assays gradually replaced nucleocapsid antibody assays, as most people were vaccinated. Spike antibodies tracked the rise in antibodies after vaccination with mRNA vaccines and became invaluable in the assessment of vaccine response. Studies demonstrated robust antibody secretion with each vaccine dose and could last for several months post-vaccination. When antigen testing was introduced, they became effective tools to identify affected patients when used serially or in an orthogonal fashion with RT-PCR testing. Despite the numerous findings during the pandemic period, research in COVID-19 has slowed. To this day it is difficult to identify a true neutralizing antibody test for the virus. An appropriate antibody level that would confer protective immunity against the plethora of new variants remains elusive. We hope that a summary of events during the pandemic could provide important insights to consider in planning for the next viral pandemic.

Evaluation of three alternative methods to the plaque reduction neutralizing assay for measuring neutralizing antibodies to dengue virus serotype 2

BACKGROUND

Dengue is a global public health challenge which requires accurate diagnostic methods for surveillance and control. The gold standard for detecting dengue neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), which is both labor-intensive and time-consuming. This study aims to evaluate three alternative approaches, namely, the MTT-based (or (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) microneutralization assay, the xCELLigence real-time cell analysis (RTCA), and the immuno-plaque assay-focus reduction neutralization test (iPA-FRNT).

METHODS

Twenty-two residual serum samples were tested for DENV-2 nAbs using all four assays at three neutralization endpoints of 50%, 70% and 90% inhibition in virus growth. For each neutralization endpoint, results were compared using linear regression and correlation analyses. Test performance characteristics were further obtained for iPA-FRNT using 38 additional serum samples.

RESULTS

Positive correlation of DENV-2 neutralization titers for the MTT-based microneutralization assay and the PRNT assay was only observed at the neutralization endpoint of 50% (r = 0.690). In contrast, at all three neutralization end points, a linear trend and positive correlation of DENV-2 neutralization titers for the xCELLigence RTCA and the PRNT assays were observed, yielding strong or very strong correlation (r = 0.829 to 0.967). This was similarly observed for the iPA-FRNT assay (r = 0.821 to 0.916), which also offered the added advantage of measuring neutralizing titers to non-plaque forming viruses.

CONCLUSION

The xCELLigence RTCA and iPA-FRNT assays could serve as suitable alternatives to PRNT for dengue serological testing. The decision to adopt these methods may depend on the laboratory setting, and the utility of additional applications offered by these technologies.

Enhancing the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 protein with structure and detection methods: An integrative review

As the rapid and accurate screening of infectious diseases can provide meaningful information for outbreak prevention and control, as well as owing to the existing limitations of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), it is imperative to have new and validated detection techniques for SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the rationale for outlining the techniques used to detect SARS-CoV-2 proteins and performing a comprehensive comparison to serve as a practical benchmark for future identification of similar viral proteins is clear. This review highlights the urgent need to strengthen pandemic preparedness by emphasizing the importance of integrated measures. These include improved tools for pathogen characterization, optimized societal precautions, the establishment of early warning systems, and the deployment of highly sensitive diagnostics for effective surveillance, triage, and resource management. Additionally, with an improved understanding of the virus' protein structure, considerable advances in targeted detection, treatment, and prevention strategies are expected to greatly improve our ability to respond to future outbreaks.

Increasing test specificity without impairing sensitivity: lessons learned from SARS-CoV-2 serology

BACKGROUND

Serological tests are widely used in various medical disciplines for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Unfortunately, the sensitivity and specificity of test systems are often poor, leaving room for false-positive and false-negative results. However, conventional methods were used to increase specificity and decrease sensitivity and vice versa. Using SARS-CoV-2 serology as an example, we propose here a novel testing strategy: the 'sensitivity improved two-test' or 'SIT²' algorithm.

METHODS

SIT² involves confirmatory retesting of samples with results falling in a predefined retesting zone of an initial screening test, with adjusted cut-offs to increase sensitivity. We verified and compared the performance of SIT² to single tests and orthogonal testing (OTA) in an Austrian cohort (1117 negative, 64 post-COVID-positive samples) and validated the algorithm in an independent British cohort (976 negatives and 536 positives).

RESULTS

The specificity of SIT² was superior to single tests and non-inferior to OTA. The sensitivity was maintained or even improved using SIT² when compared with single tests or OTA. SIT² allowed correct identification of infected individuals even when a live virus neutralisation assay could not detect antibodies. Compared with single testing or OTA, SIT² significantly reduced total test errors to 0.46% (0.24-0.65) or 1.60% (0.94-2.38) at both 5% or 20% seroprevalence.

CONCLUSION

For SARS-CoV-2 serology, SIT² proved to be the best diagnostic choice at both 5% and 20% seroprevalence in all tested scenarios. It is an easy to apply algorithm and can potentially be helpful for the serology of other infectious diseases.

Thorax computed tomography findings and anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G levels in polymerase chain reaction-negative probable COVID-19 cases

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels after 6 months of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative but assumed to be COVID-19 positive cases to investigate the relationship between IgG levels and thoracic computed tomography (CT) findings.

METHODS

This was a single-center study that included patients whose PCR test results were negative at least three times using nasopharyngeal swabs but had clinical findings of COVID-19 and thoracic CT findings compatible with viral pneumonia. Six months after discharge, the IgG antibodies were analyzed. The cutoff value for negative and positive serology was defined as <1.4 (index S/C) and ≥1.4 (index S/C), respectively. In addition, the patients were categorized according to their thoracic CT findings as high (typical) and low (atypical). Also, the patients were grouped into classes as <5% lung involvement versus ≥5% lung involvement.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 49.78±12.96 years. PCR was negative, but patients with COVID-19 symptoms who had SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive were 81.9% (n=95). The antibody titer and lung involvement ≥5% were statistically significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive cases (p<0.001 and p=0.021). Age and chest CT findings were the risk factors for lung involvement (OR=1.08, p<0.001 and OR=2.19, p=0.010, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study is valuable because increasing severity (≥5%) of lung involvement appears to be associated with high and persistent IgG antibody titers. In probable cases of COVID-19, even if the PCR test is negative, high IgG titers 6 months after discharge can predict the rate of lung parenchymal involvement.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

COVID-19 serum can be cross-reactive and neutralizing against the dengue virus, as observed by the dengue virus neutralization test

OBJECTIVES

Observing the serological cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and dengue virus (DV), we aimed to elucidate its effect on dengue serodiagnosis and infectivity in a highly dengue-endemic city in India.

METHODS

A total of 52 COVID-19 (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] positive) serum samples were tested in rapid lateral flow immunoassays and DV immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect DV or SARS-CoV-2 IgG/immunoglobulin M. The COVID-19 antibody (Ab) positive samples were subjected to a virus neutralization test (Huh7 cells) using DV type 1 (DV1) clinical isolate.

RESULTS

Most (93%) of the SARS-CoV-2 Ab-positive serum samples cross-reacted with DV in rapid or ELISA tests. All were DV RNA and nonstructural protein 1 (NS1) antigen-negative. COVID-19 serum samples that were DV cross-reactive neutralized DV1. Of these, 57% had no evidence of DV pre-exposure (DV NS1 Ab-negative). The computational study also supported potential interactions between SARS-CoV-2 Ab and DV1.

CONCLUSION

DV serodiagnosis will be inconclusive in areas co-endemic for both viruses. The COVID-19 pandemic appears to impart a protective response against DV in DV-endemic populations.

Performance analysis among multiple fully automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement reagents: A potential indicator for the correlation of protection in the antibody titer

Background

To evaluate the performance of various reagents in automated analyzers for antibody detection against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Methods

Using 100 serum samples from 100 individual patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the precision, linearity, determination agreement, and correlation of five qualitative reagents (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgM, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM, and SARS-CoV-2 IgM) and four quantitative reagents (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG II, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG 1st IS, and SARS-COV-2 IgG S) were analyzed. A surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT) kit was used to evaluate the measurement value of each quantitative reagent corresponding to the amount of neutralizing antibody, similar to that of patients in the late stage of infection.

Results

Precision and linearity were found to be sufficient for clinical use. Five discrepant samples were observed in the positive and negative judgments of the qualitative reagents for IgG, and one discrepant sample was observed in the qualitative reagent for IgM. Although the measurement values of the quantitative reagents were different, they were correlated with each reagent. The reference values inferred from the sVNT were Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2: 71.8 U/L, ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgGⅡ: 2976.3 AU/mL, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG 1st IS: 689.6 IU/mL, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG S: 19.3 U/L.

Conclusions

The performance observed for each anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection reagent was sufficient. The reference values based on the inhibition rate of sVNT have potential as indicators of the correlation of protection and are expected to be leveraged in automated antibody tests.

Low risk of serological cross-reactivity between the dengue virus and SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using advanced detection assays

Several studies have reported serological cross-reactivity of the immune responses between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV. Most of the available studies are based on the point of care (POC) rapid testing kits. However, some rapid test kits have low specificity and can generate false positives. Hence, we aimed to investigate the potential serological cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV IgG antibodies using advanced assays including chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and ELISA test. A total of 90 DENV-IgG-ELISA positive and 90 negative pre-pandemic sera were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG using the automated CL-900i CLIA assay. Furthermore, a total of 91 SARS-CoV-2-IgG-CLIA positive and 91 negative post-pandemic sera were tested for anti-DENV-IgG using the Novalisa ELISA assay. The DENV-IgG positive sera resulted in five positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. Similarly, the DENV-IgG negative sera also resulted in five positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. No statistically significant difference in specificity between the DENV-IgG positive and DENV-IgG negative sera was found (p-value=1.00). The SARS-CoV-2-IgG positive sera displayed 43 positives, 47 negatives, and one equivocal for DENV-IgG. Whereas the SARS-CoV-2-IgG negative sera resulted in 50 positives, 40 negatives, and one equivocal for DENV-IgG. No statistically significant difference in the proportion that is DENV-IgG positive between the SARS-CoV-2-IgG positive and SARS-CoV-2-IgG negative sera (p-value=0.58). In conclusion, there is a low risk of serological cross-reactivity between the DENV, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies when using advanced detection assays.  .

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the sensitivity of antibody tests for the laboratory confirmation of COVID-19

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 during the first week of symptom onset in patients confirmed with the real-time RT-PCR. Materials & methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 58 publications were performed using data obtained from Academic Search Ultimate, Africa-wide, Scopus, Web of Science and MEDLINE. Results: We found that the highest pooled sensitivities were obtained with ELISA IgM-IgG and chemiluminescence immunoassay IgM tests. Conclusion: Serological tests have low sensitivity within the first week of symptom onset and cannot replace nucleic acid amplification tests. However, serological assays can be used to support nucleic acid amplification tests.

Robust SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses in Asian COVID-Naïve Subjects 180 Days after Two Doses of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Background: Subjects with previous COVID-19 have augmented post-vaccination responses. However, the antibody response in COVID-naïve subjects from Southeast Asia is not well known. Methods: 77 COVID-naïve vaccinees were tested with a full antibody panel [spike antibodies (total (T-Ab), IgG, IgM) and neutralizing antibodies (N-Ab)] pre-vaccination, 10 days after dose 1, and 20/40/60/90/120/150/180 days after dose 2. Results: 10 days after dose 1, 67.6% (48/71)/69.0% (49/71) were T-Ab/IgG positive; only 15.5% (11/71)/14.1% (10/71) were N-Ab/IgM positive. While all (100%) subjects had brisk T-Ab, IgG and N-Ab antibody responses 20 days after complete vaccination, only 79.1% (53/67) were IgM positive. At 180 days (n = 8), T-Ab/IgG/N-Ab were still reactive (lowest T-Ab 186 U/mL, IgG 617 AU/mL, N-Ab 0.39 µg/mL), but IgM was negative in all samples. Spike antibody thresholds of T-Ab 74.1 U/mL (r = 0.95) and IgG 916 AU/mL (r = 0.95) corresponded to N-Ab reactivity (>0.3 µg/mL). Non-linear regression analysis showed that N-Ab would decrease to 0.3 µg/mL by 241 days, whereas T-Ab/IgG would need 470/163 days to reach titers of T-Ab/IgG associated with a N-Ab 0.3 µg/mL (76.4 U/mL and 916 AU/mL respectively). Conclusions: The antibody responses of T-Ab, IgG and N-Ab remain high and durable even at 180 days. N-Ab titers are expected to remain reactive up to 241 days post-vaccination.

Performance of the Roche/Snibe electrochemiluminescent anti-SARS-COV-2 spike assays compared to the Roche/Abbott IgG nucleocapsid and Abbott IgM spike assays

Introduction

We evaluated the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Snibe SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG spike chemiluminescent immunoassays and compared them to existing Roche/Abbott nucleocapsid and Abbott IgM spike assays.

Methods

We enrolled 184 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive samples and 215 controls (172 pre-pandemic, and 43 cross-reactivity) to evaluate the Roche spike antibody (anti-SARS-CoV-2-S) assay. For the Snibe evaluation, we included 119 RT-PCR positive samples and 249 controls (200 pre-pandemice, 49 cross-reactivity). 98 cases had been tested on three spike assays (Roche total antibody, Snibe IgG and Abbott IgM).

Results

The Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2-S assay had a CV of 0.5% (0.82U/mL) and 2.3% (8.72U/mL) and was linear from 1.16 to 240U/mL. The Snibe assay was linear from 6.43 to 77.7AU/mL, CV of 5.5% (0.43AU/mL) and 8.8% (0.18AU/mL). The Snibe spike assay was significantly more sensitive than the Abbott IgG assay at 0–6 days POS (35.2% vs 3.6%, mean difference 29.6%, 95% CI 17.5 to 41.8, p < 0.0001). Optimized LORs significantly improved the sensitivity of the Roche spike (48.1%–56.7%) and both nucleocapsid assays (Roche 43.3%–65.5%, Abbott 3.6%–18.5%) in early disease.

Conclusion

Although both spike assays showed higher sensitivity than their nucleocapsid counterparts, lower, optimized LORs provided the most significant improvements to sensitivity.

•

We report the performance of the Roche and Snibe anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike assays.

•

The Snibe spike assay displayed the greatest sensitivity in early disease.

•

The Snibe assay showed cross-reactivity with dengue and hepatitis antibodies.

•

Optimized limits of reactivity improved the sensitivities of assays.

Case-Control Study of Individuals with Discrepant Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein SARS-CoV-2 IgG Results

BACKGROUND

Laboratory-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection vary widely in performance. However, there are limited prospectively-collected data on assay performance, and minimal clinical information to guide interpretation of discrepant results.

METHODS

Over a 2-week period, 1080 consecutive plasma samples submitted for clinical SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing were tested in parallel for anti-nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N, Abbott) and anti-spike IgG (anti-S1, EUROIMMUN). Chart review was conducted for samples testing positive or borderline on either assay, and for an age/sex-matched cohort of samples negative by both assays. CDC surveillance case definitions were used to determine clinical sensitivity/specificity and conduct receiver operating characteristics curve analysis.

RESULTS

There were 52 samples positive by both methods, 2 positive for anti-N only, 34 positive for anti-S1 only, and 27 borderline for anti-S1. Of the 34 individuals positive for anti-S1 alone, 8 (24%) had confirmed COVID-19. No anti-S1 borderline cases were positive for anti-N or had confirmed/probable COVID-19. The anti-N assay was less sensitive (84.2% [95% CI 72.1-92.5%] vs 94.7% [95% CI 85.4-98.9%]) but more specific (99.2% [95% CI 95.5-100%] vs 86.9% [95% CI 79.6-92.3%]) than anti-S1. Abbott anti-N sensitivity could be improved to 96.5% with minimal effect on specificity if the index threshold was lowered from 1.4 to 0.6.

CONCLUSION

Real-world concordance between different serologic assays may be lower than previously described in retrospective studies. These findings have implications for the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG results, especially with the advent of spike antigen-targeted vaccination, as a subset of patients with true infection are anti-N negative and anti-S1 positive.

Detection of Anti-Nucleocapsid Antibody in COVID-19 Patients in Bangladesh Is not Correlated with Previous Dengue Infection

BACKGROUND

The assessment of antibody responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 is potentially confounded by exposures to flaviviruses. The aims of the present research were to determine whether anti-dengue antibodies affect the viral load and the detection of anti-coronavirus nucleocapsid (N)-protein antibodies in coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Bangladesh.

METHODS

Viral RNA was evaluated in swab specimens from 115 COVID-19 patients by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rT-PCR). The anti-N-protein antibodies, anti-dengue virus E-protein antibodies and the dengue non-structural protein-1 were determined in serum from 115 COVID-19 patients, 30 acute dengue fever pre-COVID-19 pandemic and nine normal controls by ELISA.

RESULTS

The concentrations of viral RNA in the nasopharyngeal; Ct median (95% CI); 22 (21.9-23.3) was significantly higher than viral RNA concentrations in oropharyngeal swabs; and 29 (27-30.5) p < 0.0001. Viral RNA concentrations were not correlated with-dengue IgG levels. The anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were IgA 27% positive and IgG 35% positive at days 1 to 8 post-onset of COVID-19 symptoms versus IgA 0% and IgG 0% in dengue patients, p < 0.0001. The levels of anti- nucleocapsid IgA or IgG versus the levels of anti-dengue IgM or IgG revealed no significant correlations.

CONCLUSIONS

Viral RNA and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were detected in COVID-19 patients from dengue-endemic regions of Bangladesh, independently of the dengue IgG levels.

Performance of an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for SARS-COV-2 IgM and head-to-head comparison of Abbott and Roche COVID-19 antibody assays

Introduction

We evaluated the performance of the new Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay on the Architect immunoassay analyser and compared it to the Architect IgG/Roche Cobas total antibody assays in both SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive cases and healthy controls.

Method

200 healthy control samples and 48 individuals with other antibody-positive disorders (18 hepatitis/18 dengue/11 ANA/1 dsDNA) served to assess for potential cross-reactivity. Anonymised residual leftover sera positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR were recruited as cases (N ​= ​133). The sensitivity/specificity/cross-reactivity of the Architect IgM assay were assessed. Concordance between the 3 assays were also analysed.

Results

There was no cross-reactivity with controls and other antibody positive samples. The Architect IgM assay was 100% specific (95% CI 98.5 to 100) and sensitivity was 77.8% (95% CI 60.8 to 89.9) ≥14 days post-first positive RT-PCR (POS). Sensitivity of the combined Architect IgM and IgG results (30.8%) was significantly better than the Cobas total antibodies (15.4%) in early disease (p ​= ​0.04). While the Architect IgM assay had moderate agreement with the Cobas total antibody result (Cohen’s kappa 0.72), a combined Architect IgM and IgG result had better agreement (Cohen’s kappa 0.83).

Conclusion

The Architect IgM assay has good specificity and no cross-reactivity with other antibody positive cases. A combined Architect IgM and IgG result has better sensitivity than the individual assays for early COVID-19. The Architect IgM assay is not comparable to the Cobas total antibody assay, but the Architect IgM and IgG combined result has good agreement with the Cobas assay.

•

IgM/IgG may not develop in some cases of COVID-19, even ≥14 days post infection.

•

The sensitivity/PPV of the combined Architect IgG/IgM assays improves ≥14 days POS.

•

The Architect IgM/IgG combined result has good agreement with the Cobas assay.

•

The Architect IgM and IgG combined results slightly outperforms the Cobas assay.

BACs-on-Beads Assay for the Prenatal Diagnosis of Microdeletion and Microduplication Syndromes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical value of BACs-on-Beads (BoBs) assay in detection of microdeletion and microduplication syndromes.

METHODS

A total of 6,814 cases of amniotic fluid cells collected from January 2015 to July 2020 in our hospital were analyzed by chromosomal karyotyping and BoBs assay. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) provided further validation for the cases of microdeletion and microduplication.

RESULTS

Thirty microdeletion and microduplication syndromes were identified by BoBs with an incidence of ~1/227, including 22q11.2 microduplication (0.044%, 3/6814), DiGeorge I syndrome (0.044%, 3/6814), 17p11.2 microduplication (0.015%, 1/6814), Smith-Magenis syndrome (0.015%, 1/6814), 17p11.2p11.3 microduplication (0.015%, 1/6814), Williams-Beuren syndrome (0.088%, 6/6814), 7q11.2 microduplication (0.029%, 2/6814), DiGeorge II syndrome (0.015%, 1/6814), 18p11.32p11.21 microduplication (0.015%, 1/6814), Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome (0.029%, 2/6814), 4p16.3 microduplication (0.015%, 1/6814), Langer-Giedion syndrome (0.015%, 1/6814), Miller-Dieker syndrome (0.015%, 1/6814), Cri du Chat syndrome (0.015%, 1/6814), Xp22.31 microdeletion (0.059%, 4/6814), Prader-Willi syndrome (0.015%, 1/6814). High concordance was obtained between BoBs and FISH or CMA. However, only four cases were detected by chromosomal karyotyping.

CONCLUSION

BoBs assay can rapidly detect microdeletion and microduplication syndromes, which compensates the shortcomings of conventional chromosomal karyotyping and greatly improves the efficiency and accuracy of prenatal diagnosis.

Immunoglobin G/total antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2: A prospective cohort study of ambulatory patients and health care workers in two Belgian oncology units comparing three commercial tests

Background

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is interfering heavily with the screening, diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients. Better knowledge of the seroprevalence and immune response after Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in this population is important to manage them safely during the pandemic.

Methods

922 cancer patients, 100 non-cancer patients and 94 health care workers (HCW) attending the Multidisciplinary Oncology Unit of Antwerp University Hospital from 24th of March 2020 till 31st of May 2020, and the Oncology Unit of AZ Maria Middelares Hospital, Ghent, from 13th of April 2020 till 31st of May 2020 participated in the study. The Alinity® (A; Abbott) and Liaison® (D; DiaSorin) commercially available assays were used to measure SARS-CoV-2 IgG, while total SARS-CoV-2 Ig was measured by Elecsys® (R; Roche).

Results

In the overall study population IgG/total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found in respectively 32/998 (3.2%), 68/1020 (6.7%), 37/1010 (3.7%) and of individuals using the A, D or R test. Forty-six out of 618 (7.4%) persons had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. Seroprevalence in cancer patients (A:2.2%, D:6.2%, R:3.0%), did not significantly differ from that in non-cancer patients (A:1.1%, D:5.6%, R:0.0%), but was lower than the HCW (A:13%, D:12%, R:12%; respectively Fisher’s exact test p = 0.00001, p = 0.046, p = 0.0004). A positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was found in 6.8% of the cancer patients, 2.3% of the non-cancer patients and 28.1% of the HCW (Fisher’s exact test p = 0.0004). Correlation between absolute values of the different Ig tests was poor in the cancer population. Dichotomising a positive versus negative test result, the A and R test correlated well (kappa 0.82 p McNemar test = 0.344), while A and D and R and D did not (respectively kappa 0.49 and 0.57; result significantly different p McNemar test = <0.0001 for both). The rate of seroconversion (>75%) and median absolute antibody levels (A: 7.0 versus 4.7; D 74.0 versus 26.6, R: 16.34 versus 7.32; all >P Mann Whitney U test = 0.28) in cancer patients and HCW with a positive RT-PCR at least 7 days earlier did not show any differences. However, none (N = 0/4) of the patients with hematological tumours had seroconversion and absolute antibody levels remained much lower compared to patients with solid tumours (R: 0.1 versus 37.6, p 0.003; D 4.1 versus 158, p 0.008) or HCW (all p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

HCW were at high risk of being infected by SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of the pandemic. Seroprevalence in cancer patients was low in the study period. Although Ig immune response in cancer patients with solid tumours does not differ from healthy volunteers, patients with hematological tumours have a very poor humoral immune response. This has to be taken into account in future vaccination programmes in this population. SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have divergent results and seem to have little added value in the management of cancer patients.

Development of a Fast SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA, Based on Receptor-Binding Domain, and Its Comparative Evaluation Using Temporally Segregated Samples From RT-PCR Positive Individuals

SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection assays are crucial for gathering seroepidemiological information and monitoring the sustainability of antibody response against the virus. The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein's receptor-binding domain (RBD) is a very specific target for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection. Moreover, many neutralizing antibodies are mapped to this domain, linking antibody response to RBD with neutralizing potential. Detection of IgG antibodies, rather than IgM or total antibodies, against RBD is likely to play a larger role in understanding antibody-mediated protection and vaccine response. Here we describe a rapid and stable RBD-based IgG ELISA test obtained through extensive optimization of the assay components and conditions. The test showed a specificity of 99.79% (95% CI: 98.82-99.99%) in a panel of pre-pandemic samples (n = 470) from different groups, i.e., pregnancy, fever, HCV, HBV, and autoantibodies positive. Test sensitivity was evaluated using sera from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive individuals (n = 312) and found to be 53.33% (95% CI: 37.87-68.34%), 80.47% (95% CI: 72.53-86.94%), and 88.24% (95% CI: 82.05-92.88%) in panel 1 (days 0-13), panel 2 (days 14-20) and panel 3 (days 21-27), respectively. Higher sensitivity was achieved in symptomatic individuals and reached 92.14% (95% CI: 86.38-96.01%) for panel 3. Our test, with a shorter runtime, showed higher sensitivity than parallelly tested commercial ELISAs for SARS-CoV-2-IgG, i.e., Euroimmun and Zydus, even when equivocal results in the commercial ELISAs were considered positive. None of the tests, which are using different antigens, could detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs in 10.5% RT-PCR positive individuals by the fourth week, suggesting the lack of IgG response.

Performance of two rapid point of care SARS-COV-2 antibody assays against laboratory-based automated chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-COV-2 IG-G, IG-M and total antibodies

Introduction

We evaluated two SARS-CoV-2 antibody point-of-care tests (POCTs) (Abbott Panbio COVID-19 IgG/IgM and Roche SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antibody tests) and compared the results to their respective chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott Architect IgM, Architect IgG, Roche Cobas total antibody assays).

Method

200 pre-pandemic sera and 48 samples positive for various conditions (18 viral hepatitis, 18 dengue, 11 ANA and 1 dsDNA) were used as controls and to assess for cross-reactivity. Anonymised residual leftover sera positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR were recruited as cases (n ​= ​133). The sensitivity/specificity/cross-reactivity/positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV) of the POCTs were assessed. Concordance between the POCTs and chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) were analysed.

Results

Abbott/Roche POCT specificity was 98.7%/100% (95% CI 96.5–99.8/98.5–100) and sensitivity was 97.2%/97.2% (95% CI 85.5–99.9/85.5–99.9) in cases ≥14 days post-first positive RT-PCR (POS), PPV was 68.7%/100% (95% CI 41.3–87.2/94.7–100.0), and NPV was 97.4%/97.6% (95% CI 97.0–97.8/97.2–98.0). In cases ≥14 days POS, concordance of Abbott/Roche POCT and CLIAs was 97.2%/100% (35/36 and 36/36 results). The sensitivity of individual IgM-band results on both POCTs did not increase >95% even after 14 days POS (Abbott 2.78%, Roche 44.4%).

Conclusion

Both POCTs have good specificity, little cross-reactivity with other antibodies, and sensitivity >95% when used in subjects ≥14 days POS. Analysis of individual POCT IgG/IgM-bands did not provide any additional information. POCTs can substitute for CLIAs in cases ≥14 days POS. In low prevalence areas, POCTs would be especially useful when combined with antigen testing in an orthogonal format to increase the PPV of COVID-19 results.

•

The POCT IgM-band is negative in most cases of COVID-19.

•

There is little utility in examining the IgG-IgM bands individually.

•

Like CLIAs, the sensitivity of the POCTs is >95% 14 days after RT-PCR positivity.

•

Combining POCTs with another test orthogonally improves the PPV.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Electro-Chemiluminescence Immunoassay Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Serological Test

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of fully automated electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological test for detection of past SARS-CoV-2 infection and to be used in seroprevalence surveys.

Method: A total of 426 patients who had tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 from August 1 to 31, 2020 were selected for the study. Informed consent was obtained and a questionnaire including the patient’s age, gender, symptoms, and past polymerase chain reaction (PCR) status was filled by the patient. Samples were analyzed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on Roche Cobas e601.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 42.43±16.67 years. One hundred and five (24.6%) were PCR positive, while 321 (75.4%) were PCR negative. Most patients were males 241 (56.6%) while 185(43.3%) were females. Over 185(43.3%) patients presented with symptoms, and the rest of the patients 241 (56.6%) were asymptomatic. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 had sensitivity 89.5%, specificity 99.06%, positive predictive value (PPV) 96.90%, negative predictive value (NPV) 96.6%, and positive likelihood ratio 4.26, while negative likelihood ratio 0.1. Diagnostic accuracy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 was 96.7% based on receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Conclusion: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 is very useful for the detection of past COVID-19 infection; it can be proved helpful in the identification of post-COVID complications and actual disease burden in a population.