Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM improves clinical sensitivity early in disease course

Updates on the Biofunctionalization of Gold Nanoparticles for the Rapid and Sensitive Multiplatform Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Virus and Its Proteins: From Computational Models to Validation in Human Samples

Since the outbreak of the pandemic respiratory virus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), academic communities and governments/private companies have used several detection techniques based on gold nanoparticles (AuNPs). In this emergency context, colloidal AuNPs are highly valuable easy-to-synthesize biocompatible materials that can be used for different functionalization strategies and rapid viral immunodiagnosis. In this review, the latest multidisciplinary developments in the bioconjugation of AuNPs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus and its proteins in (spiked) real samples are discussed for the first time, with reference to the optimal parameters provided by three approaches: one theoretical, via computational prediction, and two experimental, using dry and wet chemistry based on single/multistep protocols. Overall, to achieve high specificity and low detection limits for the target viral biomolecules, optimal running buffers for bioreagent dilutions and nanostructure washes should be validated before conducting optical, electrochemical, and acoustic biosensing investigations. Indeed, there is plenty of room for improvement in using gold nanomaterials as stable platforms for ultrasensitive and simultaneous "in vitro" detection by the untrained public of the whole SARS-CoV-2 virus, its proteins, and specific developed IgA/IgM/IgG antibodies (Ab) in bodily fluids. Hence, the lateral flow assay (LFA) approach is a quick and judicious solution to combating the pandemic. In this context, the author classifies LFAs according to four generations to guide readers in the future development of multifunctional biosensing platforms. Undoubtedly, the LFA kit market will continue to improve, adapting researchers' multidetection platforms for smartphones with easy-to-analyze results, and establishing user-friendly tools for more effective preventive and medical treatments.

Monitoring algorithm of hospitalized patients in a medical center with SARS-CoV-2 (Omicron variant) infection: clinical epidemiological surveillance and immunological assessment

Purpose

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a major healthcare threat worldwide. Since it was first identified in November 2021, the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of SARS-CoV-2 has evolved into several lineages, including BA.1, BA.2-BA.4, and BA.5. SARS-CoV-2 variants might increase transmissibility, pathogenicity, and resistance to vaccine-induced immunity. Thus, the epidemiological surveillance of circulating lineages using variant phenotyping is essential. The aim of the current study was to characterize the clinical outcome of Omicron BA.2 infections among hospitalized COVID-19 patients and to perform an immunological assessment of such cases against SARS-CoV-2.

Patients and Methods

We evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the BioIC SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)M/IgG detection kit, which was used for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 257 patients infected with the Omicron variant.

Results

Poor prognosis was noted in 38 patients, including eight deaths in patients characterized by comorbidities predisposing them to severe COVID-19. The variant-of-concern (VOC) typing and serological analysis identified time-dependent epidemic trends of BA.2 variants emerging in the outbreak of the fourth wave in Taiwan. Of the 257 specimens analyzed, 108 (42%) and 24 (9.3%) were positive for anti-N IgM and IgG respectively.

Conclusion

The VOC typing of these samples allowed for the identification of epidemic trends by time intervals, including the B.1.1.529 variant replacing the B.1.617.2 variant. Moreover, antibody testing might serve as a complementary method for COVID-19 diagnosis. The combination of serological testing results with the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold value has potential value in disease prognosis, thereby aiding in epidemic investigations conducted by clinicians or the healthcare department.

Specificity and Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Test Methods in Emergency Department Populations Across the United States in 2019 and Early 2020

BACKGROUND

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 is integral for understanding prevalence of disease, tracking of infections, confirming humoral response to vaccines, and determining timing and efficacy of boosters. The study objective was to compare the specificity of serology assays in emergency department populations across the United States in 2019 (pre-pandemic) early 2020 incorporating an automated confirmatory assay.

METHODS

Patient specimens (n = 1954) were from four regions in the United States: New York, NY; Milwaukee, WI; Miami, FL; and Los Angeles, CA. Specimens were tested with SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike receptor binding domain assays: SARS-CoV-2 IgG on the Abbott Alinity i (AdviseDx SARS-Cov-2 IgG II) and Beckman Coulter Access 2 (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II), and SARS-CoV-2 IgM on the Abbott Alinity i (AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgM). Reactive samples were tested with a research use only ACE2 binding inhibition assay (Abbott ARCHITECT) for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Assay specificity was determined and comparisons performed with Fisher's Exact Test.

RESULTS

Overall SARS-CoV-2 IgG specificity was 99.28% (95% confidence interval: 98.80%-99.61%), 99.39% (98.93%-99.68%), and 99.44% (98.99%-99.72%) for SARS-CoV-2 IgG by Abbott and Beckman, and SARS-CoV-2 IgM, respectively. Overall agreement for the two IgG assays was 99.28% (range for the four sites: 98.21%-100%). There were no specificity differences between assays or sites.

CONCLUSIONS

The specificity of the serological assays evaluated in a large diverse emergency department population was >99% and did not vary by geographical site. A confirmatory algorithm with an automated pseudo-neutralization assay allowed testing on the same specimen while reducing the false positivity rate and increasing the value of serology screening methods.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination elicits unconventional IgM specific responses in naïve and previously COVID-19-infected individuals

Background

Currently, evaluation of the IgG antibodies specific for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein following vaccination is used worldwide to estimate vaccine response. Limited data are available on vaccine-elicited IgM antibodies and their potential implication in immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

We performed a longitudinal study to quantify anti-S SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM (IgG-S and IgM-S) in health care worker (HCW) recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Samples were collected before administration (T0), at the second dose (T1) and three weeks after T1 (T2). The cohort included 1584 immunologically naïve to SARS-CoV-2 (IN) and 289 with history of previous infection (PI).

Findings

IN showed three patterns of responses: (a) IgG positive/IgM negative (36.1%), (b) coordinated IgM-S/IgG-S responses appearing at T1 (37.4%) and (c) IgM appearing after IgG (26.3%). Coordinated IgM-S/IgG-S responses were associated with higher IgG titres. In IgM-S positive PI, 64.5% were IgM-S positive before vaccination, whereas 32% and 3.5% developed IgM-S after the first and second vaccine dose, respectively. IgM-S positive sera had higher pseudovirus neutralization titres compared to the IgM-S negative.

Interpretation

Coordinated expression of IgG-S and IgM-S after vaccination was associated with a significantly more efficient response in both antibody levels and virus-neutralizing activity. The unconventional IgG-S positive/IgM-S negative responses may suggest a recruitment of cross coronaviruses immunity by vaccination, warranting further investigation.

Funding

Italian Ministry of Health under “Fondi Ricerca Corrente”- L1P5 and “Progetto Ricerca Finalizzata COVID-2020-12371675”; FUR 2020 Department of Excellence 2018-2022, MIUR, Italy; The Brain Research Foundation Verona.

Evaluation of Three Quantitative Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Immunoassays

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 and caused a dramatic pandemic. Serological assays are used to check for immunization and assess herd immunity. We evaluated commercially available assays designed to quantify antibodies directed to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) antigen, either total (Wantaï SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA) or IgG (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant on Alinity, Abbott, and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, Diasorin). The specificities of the Wantaï, Alinity, and Liaison assays were evaluated using 100 prepandemic sera and were 98, 99, and 97%, respectively. The sensitivities of all three were around 100% when tested on 35 samples taken 15 to 35 days postinfection. They were less sensitive for 150 sera from late infections (>180 days). Using the first WHO international standard (NIBSC), we showed that the Wantai results were concordant with the NIBSC values, while Liaison and Alinity showed a proportional bias of 1.3 and 7, respectively. The results of the 3 immunoassays were significantly globally pairwise correlated and for late infection sera (P < 0.001). They were correlated for recent infection sera measured with Alinity and Liaison (P < 0.001). However, the Wantai results of recent infections were not correlated with those from Alinity or Liaison. All the immunoassay results were significantly correlated with the neutralizing antibody titers obtained using a live virus neutralization assay with the B1.160 SARS-CoV-2 strain. These assays will be useful once the protective anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer has been determined.

IMPORTANCE Standardization and correlation with virus neutralization assays are critical points to compare the performance of serological assays designed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in order to identify their optimal use. We have evaluated three serological immunoassays based on the virus spike antigen that detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a microplate assay and two chemiluminescent assays performed with Alinity (Abbott) and Liaison (Diasorin) analysers. We used an in-house live virus neutralization assay and the first WHO international standard to assess the comparison. This study could be useful to determine guidelines on the use of serological results to manage vaccination and treatment with convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibodies.

Applications of laboratory findings in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of COVID-19

The worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents us with a serious public health crisis. To combat the virus and slow its spread, wider testing is essential. There is a need for more sensitive, specific, and convenient detection methods of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Advanced detection can greatly improve the ability and accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, which is conducive to the early suitable treatment and supports precise prophylaxis. In this article, we combine and present the latest laboratory diagnostic technologies and methods for SARS-CoV-2 to identify the technical characteristics, considerations, biosafety requirements, common problems with testing and interpretation of results, and coping strategies of commonly used testing methods. We highlight the gaps in current diagnostic capacity and propose potential solutions to provide cutting-edge technical support to achieve a more precise diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 and to overcome the difficulties with the normalization of epidemic prevention and control.

Validation of high-throughput, semiquantitative solid-phase SARS coronavirus-2 serology assays in serum and dried blood spot matrices

Aim: Serological assays for the detection of anti-SARS coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are essential to the response to the global pandemic. A ligand binding-based serological assay was validated for the semiquantitative detection of IgG, IgM, IgA and neutralizing antibodies (nAb) against SARS-CoV-2 in serum. Results: The assay demonstrated high levels of diagnostic specificity and sensitivity (85-99% for all analytes). Serum IgG, IgM, IgA and nAb correlated positively (R2 = 0.937, R2 = 0.839, R2 = 0.939 and R2 = 0.501, p < 0.001, respectively) with those measured in dried blood spot samples collected using the hemaPEN® microsampling device (Trajan Scientific and Medical, Victoria, Australia). In vitro SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype neutralization correlated positively with the solid phase nAb signals in convalescent donors (R2 = 0.458, p < 0.05). Conclusion: The assay is applicable in efficacy studies, infection monitoring and postmarketing surveillance following vaccine rollout.

Evaluation of Dried Blood Spot Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Serology Using a Quantitative Commercial Assay

Dried blood spots (DBS) are commonly used for serologic testing for viruses and provide an alternative collection method when phlebotomy and/or conventional laboratory testing are not readily available. DBS collection could be used to facilitate widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to document past infection, vaccination, and potentially immunity. We investigated the characteristics of Roche's Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (S) assay, a quantitative commercial assay for antibodies against the spike glycoprotein. Antibody levels were reduced relative to plasma following elution from DBS. Quantitative results from DBS samples were highly correlated with values from plasma (r2 = 0.98), allowing for extrapolation using DBS results to accurately estimate plasma antibody levels. High concordance between plasma and fingerpick DBS was observed in PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients tested 90 days or more after the diagnosis (45/46 matched; 1/46 mismatched plasma vs. DBS). The assessment of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 using DBS may be feasible using a quantitative anti-S assay, although false negatives may rarely occur in those with very low antibody 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.