SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid urine antigen in hospitalized patients with Covid-19

Synergistic impact of N-antigenemia profiled by a rapid antigen test and low anti-S1 antibodies on the risk of hospitalization in COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Identifying patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of poor evolution is key to early decide on their hospitalization. We evaluated the combined impact of nucleocapsid (N)-antigenemia profiled by a rapid test and antibodies against the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV S protein (S1) on the hospitalization risk of patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

N-antigenemia and anti-S1 antibodies were profiled at admission to the emergency department in 146 patients with COVID-19 using the Panbio® antigen Rapid Test and the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G II Quant/SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G assay from Abbott. A multivariable analysis was used to evaluate the impact of these factors on hospitalization.

RESULTS

Patients with a positive N-antigen test in plasma and anti-S1 levels <2821 arbitrary units/mL needed hospitalization more frequently (20 of 23, 87%). A total of 20 of 71 (28.2%) of those showing a negative N-antigen test and anti-S1 ≥2821 arbitrary units/mL were hospitalized for 18 of 52 (34.6%) of the patients with only one of these conditions. Patients with a positive N-antigen test and low antibody levels showed an odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value for hospitalization of 18.21, 2.74-121.18, and 0.003, respectively, and exhibited the highest mortality (30.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous profiling of a rapid N-antigen test in plasma and anti-S1 levels could help to early identify patients with COVID-19 needing hospitalization.

SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen in plasma of children hospitalized for COVID-19 or with incidental detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection

In hospitalized children, SARS-CoV-2 infection can present as either a primary reason for admission (patients admitted for COVID-19) or an incidental finding during follow-up (patients admitted with COVID-19). We conducted a nested case-control study within a cohort of pediatric patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, to investigate the concentration of plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N-Ag) in children admitted for COVID-19 or with COVID-19. While reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction Ct values in nasopharyngeal swab were similar between the two groups, children admitted for COVID-19 had a higher rate of detectable N-Ag (12/18 (60.7%) versus 6/18 (33.3%), p = 0.0455) and a higher concentration of N-Ag (medians: 19.51 g/mL vs. 1.08 pg/mL, p = 0.0105). In children hospitalized for COVID-19, the youngest had higher concentration of N-Ag (r = -0.74, p = 0.0004). We also observed a lower prevalence of detectable spike antibodies in children hospitalized for COVID-19 compared to those hospitalized for other medical reasons (3/15 [20%] vs. 13/16 [81.25%], respectively, p = < 0.0011), but similar rates of IgG nucleocapsid antibodies (5/14 [35.7%] vs. 6/17 [35.3%], respectively, p = 0.99). Our findings indicate that N-Ag is associated with COVID-19-related hospitalizations in pediatric patients, and less frequently detected in children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 but hospitalized for another medical reason. Further studies are needed to confirm the value of N-Ag in identifying COVID-19 disease infections in which SARS-CoV-2 is the main pathogen responsible for symptoms.

SARS-CoV-2 N-Antigen Quantification in Respiratory Tract, Plasma and Urine: Kinetics and Association with RT-qPCR Results

Qualitative SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays based on immunochromatography are useful for mass diagnosis of COVID-19, even though their sensitivity is poor in comparison with RT-PCR assays. In addition, quantitative assays could improve antigenic test performance and allow testing with different specimens. Using quantitative assays, we tested 26 patients for viral RNA and N-antigen in respiratory samples, plasma and urine. This allowed us to compare the kinetics between the three compartments and to compare RNA and antigen concentrations in each. Our results showed the presence of N-antigen in respiratory (15/15, 100%), plasma (26/59, 44%) and urine (14/54, 28.9%) samples, whereas RNA was only detected in respiratory (15/15, 100%) and plasma (12/60, 20%) samples. We detected N-antigen in urine and plasma samples until the day 9 and day 13 post-inclusion, respectively. The antigen concentration was found to correlate with RNA levels in respiratory (p < 0.001) and plasma samples (p < 0.001). Finally, urinary antigen levels correlated with plasma levels (p < 0.001). Urine N-antigen detection could be part of the strategy for the late diagnosis and prognostic evaluation of COVID-19, given the ease and painlessness of sampling and the duration of antigen excretion in this biological compartment.

Sensitivity and performance of three novel quantitative assays of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein in blood

To assess if SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) systemic disease can be determined by available nucleoprotein assays, we compared the performance of three commercial SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (N) assays in plasma. A total of 272 plasma samples collected in the period November-December 2021 were analyzed by the methods Simoa SARS CoV-2 N Protein Advantage Kit [Quanterix Simoa], Solsten SARS-CoV-2 Antigen enzyme immunosorbent assay (ELISA) [Solsten ELISA], and Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen electrochemiluminescence immunoassay [Elecsys ECLIA]. Additionally, a dilution series of inactivated virus culture was analyzed by the three assays. The SARS CoV-2 PCR-status was not known for the patients. Linear correlation in the pairwise correlation between assays as well as linearity of dilution series of inactivated virus culture was estimated by Spearman score. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated by pairwise comparison. The three assays showed poor agreement on patient samples with regards to concentration. Performance on virus culture was excellent but with different level of detection (LOD). Positive vs negative results show comparable sensitivity and specificity of Quanterix Simoa and Solsten ELISA, with a higher LOD in Elecsys ECLIA and thus lower sensitivity and high specificity. N by all tested assays can be used as a marker for systemic COVID-19 disease.

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine celebrates 60 years – narrative review devoted to the contribution of the journal to the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2

This review is an integral part of the special issue for the 60 years of the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM). The aim of the review is to highlight the role of the clinical laboratory since the emergence of the “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2), which causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with special focus on the contribution of the journal in generating knowledge in SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. As of October 30, 2022, a total of 186 CCLM publications were dedicated to COVID-19. Of importance, major International Federation of Clinical Chemistry (IFCC) guidelines related to the diagnosis of COVID-19 were published in CCLM. Between early-2020 and late October 2022, COVID-19 publications represented around 27% of all articles in CCLM, highlighting the willingness of the editorial board to help the field in order to better describe and diagnose this new emerging disease. First launched in 1963 under the name “Zeitschrift für Klinische Chemie”, the Journal was entirely devoted to clinical chemistry in the strict sense. The various topics published in relation to COVID-19 including its diagnosis, its impact on biochemical or hematological measures, as well as biosafety measures, is the perfect example that shows that the journal has greatly diversified over time.