Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal and oropharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce. METHODS: The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.

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.

Validation and advantages of using novel RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) assays are gold standard in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection and play a major role in viral subtyping for rapid detection and monitoring of important mutations, containing the spread of new virus variants. We wanted to compare RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays to Sanger Sequencing for detection of variants within the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and examined their sensitivity and specificity. Samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 663 + 82) were subtyped using both Sanger sequencing and five RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays specific for the mutations N501Y, P681H, E484K, K417N/T, and N439K. The results of the two methods were compared. The training cohort and the clinical validation cohort showed equally, or significantly better sensitivity of the assays compared to the Sanger sequencing. The agreement of the Sanger sequencing and the assays ranged from 92.6 to 100% for the training cohort and 99.4-100% for the clinical validation. The sensitivity, specificity, and turn-around time of the RT-qPCR melting curve analysis assays are well-suited for clinical monitoring of VOCs, making the assays an important tool in contact tracing and risk stratification. Furthermore, the assays were able to indicate the presence of new mutations in the complementary sequence to the mutation-specific probes.

Triage Strategies Based on C-Reactive Protein Levels and SARS-CoV-2 Tests among Individuals Referred with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

C-reactive protein (CRP) has prognostic value in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; the importance of CRP in pre-hospitalized patients remains to be tested. Methods: Individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 had a SARS-CoV-2 PCR oropharyngeal swab test, and a measurement of CRP was performed at baseline, with an upper reference range of 10 mg/L. After 28 days, information about possible admissions, oxygen treatments, transfers to the ICU, or deaths was obtained from the patient files. Using logistic regression, the prognostic value of the CRP and SARS-CoV-2 test results was evaluated. Results: Among the 1006 patients included, the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was positive in 59, and the CRP level was elevated (>10 mg/L) in 131. In total, 59 patients were hospitalized, only 3 of whom were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with elevated CRP (n = 2) and normal CRP (n = 1). The probability of being hospitalized with elevated CRP was 4.21 (95%CI 2.38-7.43, p < 0.0001), while the probability of being hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 positivity alone was 0.85 (95%CI 0.26-2.81, p = 0.79). Conclusions: CRP is not a reliable predictor for the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pre-hospitalized patients. CRP, while not a SARS-CoV-2 positive test, had prognostic value in the total population of patients presenting with COVID-19-related symptoms.

A non-enzymatic, isothermal strand displacement and amplification assay for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

The current nucleic acid signal amplification methods for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection heavily rely on the functions of biological enzymes which imposes stringent transportation and storage conditions, high cost and global supply shortages. Here, a non-enzymatic whole genome detection method based on a simple isothermal signal amplification approach is developed for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and potentially any types of nucleic acids regardless of their size. The assay, termed non-enzymatic isothermal strand displacement and amplification (NISDA), is able to quantify 10 RNA copies.µL-1. In 164 clinical oropharyngeal RNA samples, NISDA assay is 100 % specific, and it is 96.77% and 100% sensitive when setting up in the laboratory and hospital, respectively. The NISDA assay does not require RNA reverse-transcription step and is fast (<30 min), affordable, highly robust at room temperature (>1 month), isothermal (42 °C) and user-friendly, making it an excellent assay for broad-based testing.

Comparison of 16 Serological SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays in 16 Clinical Laboratories.

Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (Ab), immunoglobulin G (IgG), and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated 15 commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in 16 laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild, or moderate COVID-19, nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT); samples were collected 13 to 73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross-reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections, and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were Wantai ELISA total Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO in-house ELISA total Ab (96.0%), Ortho Vitros total Ab (95.3%), YHLO iFlash IgG (94.0%), Ortho Vitros IgG (93.3%), Siemens Atellica total Ab (93.2%), Roche Elecsys total Ab (92.7%), Abbott Architect IgG (90.0%), Abbott Alinity IgG (median 88.0%), DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens Vista total Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA IgG (78.0%), and Snibe Maglumi IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai IgM ELISA showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.