Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea

Realistic Estimation of COVID-19 Infection by Seroprevalence Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: An Experience From Korea Metropolitan Area From January to May 2022

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread globally, leading to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Because a significant proportion of the COVID-19 confirmed cases were concentrated in the capital metropolitan area of South Korea, and a large proportion of the population in the area had been adequately vaccinated against COVID-19, we conducted a seroprevalence surveillance study focusing on the residents of the capital metropolitan area in South Korea.

METHODS

We used a quota-sampling method to obtain blood samples from 1,000 individuals per round, equally stratified across seven age categories and sexes and regions, from five medical institutions located within the capital metropolitan area of South Korea. During five consecutive months (rounds) between January 2022 and May 2022, a total of 5,000 samples were analyzed for anti-spike (S) and anti-nucleocapsid (N) antibodies.

RESULTS

High anti-S seropositivity was observed in all age groups, which corresponded to the vaccine coverage during the study period. Both the cumulative incidence based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the estimated seroprevalence based on anti-N seropositivity increased in the fourth and fifth rounds, which corresponded to April 2022 and May 2022. Seroprevalence coincided with the cumulative incidence during the first three rounds, but exceeded from the fourth survey onwards when infection with omicron variants was increased rapidly in Korea.

CONCLUSION

Seroprevalence confirmed the number of infection cases outside of PCR testing-based surveillance. Seroepidemiological surveillance can help us understand vaccine responses and detect hidden infections, thereby providing appropriate public health guidance for achieving population-level immunity.

Association Between Low Anti-spike Antibody Levels After the Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Hospitalization due to Symptomatic Breakthrough Infection in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Background

Whether anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody levels post-third coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination correlate with worse outcomes due to breakthrough infection is unclear. We evaluated the association between anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and symptomatic breakthrough infection or hospitalization during the Omicron surge in kidney transplant recipients.

Methods

In total, 287 kidney transplant recipients expected to receive a third vaccination were enrolled between November 2021 and February 2022. The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant test (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) was performed within three weeks before and four weeks after the third vaccination. The incidence of symptomatic breakthrough infection and hospitalization from two weeks to four months post-third vaccination was recorded.

Results

After the third vaccination, the seropositive rate and median antibody titer of the 287 patients increased from 57.1% to 82.2% and from 71.7 (interquartile range [IQR] 7.2-402.8) to 1,612.1 (IQR 153.9-5,489.1) AU/mL, respectively. Sixty-four (22.3%) patients had symptomatic breakthrough infections, of whom 12 required hospitalization. Lower anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG levels (<400 AU/mL) post-third vaccination were a risk factor for symptomatic breakthrough infection (hazard ratio [HR]=3.46, P<0.001). Anti-RBD IgG levels <200 AU/mL were a critical risk factor for hospitalization (HR=36.4, P=0.007).

Conclusions

Low anti-spike IgG levels after third vaccination in kidney transplant recipients were associated with symptomatic breakthrough infection and, particularly, with hospitalization during the Omicron surge. These data can be used to identify patients requiring additional protective measures, such as passive immunization using monoclonal antibodies.

Humoral Response Kinetics and Cross-Immunity in Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 WT, Delta, or Omicron Infections: A Comparison between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Cohorts

With the ongoing evolution of severe acute respiratory virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases continues to rise. This study aims to investigate the impact of vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 variants, and disease severity on the humoral immune response, including cross-neutralizing activity, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This retrospective cohort study involved 122 symptomatic COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a single center. Patients were categorized based on the causative specific SARS-CoV-2 variants (33 wild-type (WT), 54 Delta and 35 Omicron) and their vaccination history. Sequential samples were collected to assess binding antibody responses (anti-S/RBD and anti-N) and surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) against WT, Omicron BA.1, and BA.4/5. The vaccinated breakthrough infection group (V) exhibited higher levels of anti-S/RBD compared to the variant-matched unvaccinated groups (UVs). The Delta infection resulted in a more rapid production of anti-S/RBD levels compared to infections with WT or Omicron variants. Unvaccinated severe WT or Delta infections had higher anti-S/RBD levels compared to mild cases, but this was not the case with Omicron infection. In vaccinated patients, there was no difference in antibody levels between mild and severe infections. Both Delta (V) and Omicron (V) groups showed strong cross-neutralizing activity against WT and Omicron (BA.1 and BA.4/5), ranging from 79.3% to 97.0%. WT (UV) and Delta (UV) infections had reduced neutralizing activity against BA.1 (0.8% to 12.0%) and BA.4/5 (32.8% to 41.0%). Interestingly, patients who received vaccines based on the ancestral spike exhibited positive neutralizing activity against BA.4/5, even though none of the study participants had been exposed to BA.4/5 and it is antigenically more advanced. Our findings suggest that a previous vaccination enhanced the humoral immune response and broadened cross-neutralizing activity to SARS-CoV-2 variants in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test using SERS-based lateral flow immunoassay

Background

'ACROSIS COVID-19 Ag (NPS)' kit (SG Medical, Seoul, Korea) is a newly developed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) using surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS)-based lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA). We evaluated its clinical performance compared with STANDARD Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor, Suwon, Korea), a previously approved Ag-RDT.

Methods

A total of 286 nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected: 104 positive and 182 negative specimens in SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse-transcription polymerase-chain-reaction (rRT-PCR). SARS-CoV-2-positive specimens were divided according to the cycle threshold (Ct) value in rRT-PCR. The clinical performance of ACROSIS was compared with that of STANDARD Q.

Results

ACROSIS showed significantly higher sensitivity than STANDARD Q (92.3% vs. 85.6%, P = 0.02), especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30 (78.6% vs. 42.9%). The Ct values of RdRp/S genes for 95% detection rates by ACROSIS and STANDARD Q were 25.8 and 23.0, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first study that evaluated the performance of ACROSIS compared with STANDARD Q. The overall clinical performance of ACROSIS was superior to that of STANDARD Q, especially in specimens with 25 ≤ Ct < 30. ACROSIS could be useful for SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection even in relatively low viral load specimens.

Evaluation of Rapid Multiplex Reverse Transcription-Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assays for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Individual and Pooled Samples

Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is no longer a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has had a vast impact to date. Hence, continuous management is required, given the uncertainty caused by the potential evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) diagnosis has been fundamental in overcoming this issue. In this study, the performances of two rapid RT-qPCR assays (Real-Q Direct SARS-CoV-2 Detection Kit and Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 fast PCR Assay) with short PCR times were comparatively evaluated using a STANDARD M nCoV Real-Time Detection Kit (STANDARD M, conventional RT-qPCR assay). All kits showed a limit of detection values (102-103 copies/reaction). The evaluation showed that the two rapid assay tests had ≥97.89% sensitivity and ≥99.51% specificity (κ = 0.98) for individual samples and ≥97.32% sensitivity and ≥97.67% specificity for pooled samples compared to STANDARD M. These results indicate that the two rapid RT-qPCR kits, which showed significant time reduction in performance, are as effective as a conventional RT-qPCR assay. They are likely to increase not only the number of tests that can be performed but also the efficiency of sustainable management of COVID-19 in the long term.

Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19; Biosafety and Pre-analytical Recommendations

From the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, clinical laboratories around the world have been involved with tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2. At present, RT-PCR (real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay) is seen as the gold standard for identifying the virus. Many factors are involved in achieving the highest accuracy in this test, including parameters related to the pre-analysis stage. Having instructions on the type of sample, how to take the sample, and its storage and transportation help control the interfering factors at this stage. Studies have shown that pre-analytical factors might be the cause of the high SARS-CoV-2 test false-negative rates. Also, the safety of personnel in molecular laboratories is of utmost importance, and it requires strict guidelines to ensure the safety of exposed individuals and prevent the virus from spreading. Since the onset of the outbreak, various instructions and guidelines have been developed in this field by the institutions and the Ministry of Health of each country; these guidelines are seriously in need of integration and operation. In this study, we try to collect all the information and research done from the beginning of this pandemic in December 2019 - August 2022 concerning biosafety and protective measures, sample types, sampling methods, container, and storage solutions, sampling equipment, and sample storage and transportation for molecular testing of SARS-CoV-2.

Evaluation of Four Rapid Antigen Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection with Nasopharyngeal Swabs

Owing to the high transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, the capacity of testing systems based on the gold standard real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) is limited. Rapid antigen tests (RATs) can substantially contribute to the prevention of community transmission, but their further assessment is required. Here, using 1503 nasopharyngeal swabs, we compared the diagnostic performance of four RAT kits (Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test, SD Biosensor Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag Test, Humasis COVID-19 Ag Test, and SG Medical Acrosis COVID-19 Ag Test) to the cycle threshold (Ct) values obtained from rRT-PCR. The precision values, area under the curve values, SARS-CoV-2 variant detection ability, and non-SARS-CoV-2 specificity of all four kits were similar. An assay using the Acrosis kit had a significantly better positive detection rate with a higher recall value and cut-off value than that using the other three RAT kits. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the Acrosis kit is an effective tool to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in communities.

Different interpretations of inconclusive results of SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT PCR

We investigated whether inconclusive results could be interpreted differently depending on the situation. First, data from retesting of the initial samples from subjects without a confirmed COVID-19 history were analyzed. And by analyzing the results of consecutive tests with new specimens after receiving inconclusive results between arrivals and locals for two periods. As a result, 179 of 219 cases (81.7%) showed still inconclusive or weakly positive results. If contamination is well controlled in a general laboratory, the effectiveness of retesting with the same sample is limited. The rate of the subsequently positive patient was significantly higher in locals than in arrivals and periods with a higher positive rate. The inconclusive results could be interpreted differently depending on the epidemiologic background and the positive rate at that time.

Converting to an international unit system improves harmonization of results for SARS-CoV-2 quantification: Results from multiple external quality assessments

BACKGROUND

The detection of SARS-CoV-2 vRNA in clinical samples has relied almost exclusively on RT-qPCR as the gold standard test. Published results from various external quality assessments ("ring trials") worldwide have shown that there is still a large variability in results reported for the same samples. As reference standards of SARS-CoV-2 RNA are available, we tested whether using standard curves to convert Ct values into copies/mL (cp/mL) improved harmonization.

METHODS

Nine laboratories using 23 test systems (15 of which were unique) prepared standard dilution curves to convert C_t values of 13 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples to cp/mL (hereafter IU/mL). The samples were provided in three rounds of a virus genome detection external quality assessment (EQA) scheme. We tested the precision and accuracy of results reported in IU/mL, and attempted to identify the sources of variability.

RESULTS

Reporting results as IU/mL improved the precision of the estimated concentrations of all samples compared to reporting Ct values, although some inaccuracy remained. Variance analysis showed that nearly all variability in data was explained by individual test systems within individual laboratories. When controlling for this effect, there was no significant difference between all other factors tested (test systems, EQA rounds, sample material).

CONCLUSIONS

Converting results to copies/mL improved precision across laboratory test systems. However, it seems the results are still very specific to test systems within laboratories. Further efforts could be made to improve accuracy and achieve full harmonization across diagnostic laboratories.

Evaluation of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus: A comparative study with the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit

BACKGROUND

Co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), can be a severe threat to public health. The accurate detection and differentiation of these viruses are essential for clinical laboratories. Herein, we comparatively evaluated the performance of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit (Kaira; Optolane, Seongnam, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens with that of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek; Kogene Biotech, Seoul, Korea).

METHODS

A total of 250 archived NPS specimens collected for routine clinical testing were tested in parallel by the Kaira and PowerChek assays. RNA standards were serially diluted and tested by the Kaira assay to calculate the limit of detection (LOD).

RESULTS

The positive and negative percent agreements between the Kaira and PowerChek assays were as follows: 100% (49/49) and 100% (201/201) for SARS-CoV-2; 100% (50/50) and 99.0% (198/200) for influenza A; 100% (50/50) and 100% (200/200) for influenza B; and 100% (51/51) and 100% (199/199) for RSV, respectively. The LODs of the Kaira assay for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV were 106.1, 717.1, 287.3, and 442.9 copies/mL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kaira assay showed comparable performance to the PowerChek assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in NPS specimens, indicating that the Kaira assay could be a useful diagnostic tool when these viruses are co-circulating.

Performance Analysis of Self-Collected Nasal and Oral Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the third highly pathogenic human coronavirus and is rapidly transmitted by infected individuals regardless of their symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the dearth of skilled healthcare workers (HCWs) to collect samples for early diagnosis, self-collection emerged as a viable alternative. To evaluate the reliability of self-collection, we compared the virus detection rate using 3990 self-collected swabs and HCW-collected swabs, procured from the same individuals and collected immediately after the self-collection. The results of multiplex reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction revealed that the viral load in the HCW-collected swabs was marginally (18.4–28.8 times) higher than that in self-collected swabs. Self-collection showed no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity from HCW-collection (κ = 0.87, McNemar’s test; p = 0.19), indicating a comparable performance. These findings suggest that self-collected swabs are acceptable substitutes for HCW-collected swabs, and that their use improved the specimen screening efficiency and reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Guidelines for Mobile Laboratories for Molecular Diagnostic Testing of COVID-19

With the rapid spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the need for rapid testing and diagnosis and consequently, the demand for mobile laboratories have increased. Despite this need, there are no clear guidelines for the operation, maintenance, or quality control of mobile laboratories. We provide guidelines for the operation, management, and quality control of mobile laboratories, and specifically for the implementation and execution of COVID-19 molecular diagnostic testing. These practical guidelines are primarily based on expert opinions and a laboratory accreditation inspection checklist. The scope of these guidelines includes the facility, preoperative evaluation, PCR testing, internal and external quality control, sample handling, reporting, laboratory personnel, biosafety level, and laboratory safety management. These guidelines are useful for the maintenance and operation of mobile laboratories not only in normal circumstances but also during public health crises and emergencies.

Saliva as a sample type for SARS-CoV-2 detection: implementation successes and opportunities around the globe

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic testing and asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 continue to be essential tools for mitigating virus transmission. Though COVID-19 diagnostics initially defaulted to oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal sampling, the worldwide urgency to expand testing efforts spurred innovative approaches and increased diversity of detection methods. Strengthening innovation and facilitating widespread testing remains critical for global health, especially as additional variants emerge and other mitigation strategies are recalibrated.

AREAS COVERED

A growing body of evidence reflects the need to expand testing efforts and further investigate the efficiency, sensitivity, and acceptability of saliva samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Countries have made pandemic response decisions based on resources, costs, procedures, and regional acceptability - the adoption and integration of saliva-based testing among them. Saliva has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity while being less invasive relative to nasopharyngeal swabs, securing saliva's position as a more acceptable sample type.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the accessibility and utility of saliva sampling, global implementation remains low compared to swab-based approaches. In some cases, countries have validated saliva-based methods but face challenges with testing implementation or expansion. Here, we review the localities that have demonstrated success with saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 testing approaches and can serve as models for transforming concepts into globally-implemented best practices.