Comparative Performance of a New SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Detection System

Evaluating the efficiency of ELISA, monoplex and multiplex probe-based real-time reverse-transcription PCR assays in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) and influenza A and B viruses: A cross-sectional study

Background and Aims

The current study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assay and monoplex and multiplex real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) in the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza A and B viruses (Flu A and Flu B).

Methods

The SARS-CoV-2 -specific IgG and IgM antibodies, as well as, Flu A (H1N1 and H3N2 serotypes) and Flu B virus antibodies were determined by ELISA assay. The one-step qRT-PCR method was used to detect the SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. Furthermore, the presence of Flu A and B viruses was evaluated using probe-based RT-PCR. Simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2, Flu A and B viruses was performed by multiplex rRT-PCR assay.

Results

SARS CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies were detected in 33.3% and 58.3% of patients, respectively. In contrast, the SARS CoV-2 genome was detected in 50% of patients using the one-step monoplex RT-PCR assay. Flu A serotypes H1N1 and H3N2 were found in 16.7% and 8.3% of patients. Probe-based RT-PCR revealed that 39.3% of patients were positive for the Flu A virus. Multiplex rRT-PCR detect the SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and Flu B in 50%, 39.3%, and 19% of samples, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of multiplex rRT-PCR assay in comparison to monoplex RT-PCR were 100% and 55%, respectively. Coinfection with SARS-CoV-2, Flu A, and Flu B viruses was found in 9.5% of patients.

Conclusion

Multiplex rRT-PCR can be used as a repaid, cost-effective and suitable tool for molecular surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A/B viruses.

Predicting Vaccine Effectiveness for Hospitalization and Symptomatic Disease for Novel SARS-CoV-2 Variants Using Neutralizing Antibody Titers

The emergence of new virus variants, including the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2, can lead to reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE) and the need for new vaccines or vaccine doses if the extent of immune evasion is severe. Neutralizing antibody titers have been shown to be a correlate of protection for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens, and could be used to quickly estimate vaccine effectiveness for new variants. However, no model currently exists to provide precise VE estimates for a new variant against severe disease for SARS-CoV-2 using robust datasets from several populations. We developed predictive models for VE against COVID-19 symptomatic disease and hospitalization across a 54-fold range of mean neutralizing antibody titers. For two mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2), models fit without Omicron data predicted that infection with the BA.1 Omicron variant increased the risk of hospitalization 2.8-4.4-fold and increased the risk of symptomatic disease 1.7-4.2-fold compared to the Delta variant. Out-of-sample validation showed that model predictions were accurate; all predictions were within 10% of observed VE estimates and fell within the model prediction intervals. Predictive models using neutralizing antibody titers can provide rapid VE estimates, which can inform vaccine booster timing, vaccine design, and vaccine selection for new virus variants.

Lack of Evidence on Association between Iron Deficiency and COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Neutralizing Humoral Immunity

Iron is a crucial micronutrient for immunity induction in response to infections and vaccinations. This study aimed to investigate the effect of iron deficiency on COVID-19-vaccine-induced humoral immunity. We investigated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx nCov-2019) in iron-deficient individuals (n = 63) and provide a side-by-side comparison to healthy controls (n = 67). The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and anti-nucleocapsid (NP) IgG were assessed using in-house S- and NP-based ELISA followed by serum neutralization test (SNT). High concordance between S-based ELISA and SNT results was observed. The prevalence of neutralizing antibodies was 95.24% (60/63) in the study group and 95.52% (64/67) in the controls with no significant difference. The presence/absence of past infection, period since vaccination, vaccine type, and being iron-deficient or having iron-deficiency anemia did not exert any significant effect on the prevalence or titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. NP-based ELISA identified individuals unaware of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, absence of anti-NP IgG was noted in participants who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 suggesting the unpredictability of after-infection immunity. To sum up, this study demonstrated an initial lack of evidence on the association between iron deficiency and the effectiveness of COVID-19-vaccine-induced neutralizing humoral immunity. Similar studies with larger sample size remain necessary to obtain comprehensive conclusions about the effect or lack of effect of iron on COVID-19-vaccine effectiveness.

Hyris bCUBE SARS-CoV-2 rapid molecular saliva testing: a POCT innovation on its way

OBJECTIVES

The reliable identification of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection is the cornerstone for containing viral spread. Rapid molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) of saliva might reduce analysis time, thus increasing the efficacy of contact tracing. In this study, a new POCT RT-PCR assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in saliva was evaluated and compared with an already validated CE-IVD method.

METHODS

An evaluation was made of 160 left-over salivary samples (27 frozen, kept at -80 °C and 133 fresh), collected using Salivette (Sarstedt, Germany). Samples were analyzed by TaqPath COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR kit, QuantStudio5 Real-Time (Applied Biosystems, USA) (TaqPath) and bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19 Saliva (Hyris Global Diagnostics, Italy). Performances of three- and fivefold pooling strategies were also evaluated. Blood assay interference in saliva was also tested with Hyris.

RESULTS

On using TaqPath, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was detected in 35 samples. Another 10 positive samples were artificially-generated by blind mixing of positive with negative samples. Hyris positive and negative percentages of agreement were 97.6 (95% CI: 87.2-99.9%) and 100 (95% CI: 97.0-100%), respectively. Seventeen positive pools, evaluated for threefold strategy, were all correctly determined by both systems. For the 5-pool strategy, 94.7% (18/19) of samples resulted positive with the Hyris system, and 100% with TaqPath. The presence of 1% of blood (v/v) in saliva did not interfere with the accuracy of Hyris assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of the bKIT Virus Finder COVID-19 Saliva were optimal with respect to TaqPath. In view of the safe and straightforward pre-analytical procedure involved, and the small size of the Hyris bCube, the Hyris system can be used for POCT.