ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the performance characteristics of a rapid antigen test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), influenza A virus (IAV), and influenza B virus (IBV) (flu) compared with those of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. One hundred SARS-CoV-2, one hundred IAV, and twenty-four IBV patients whose diagnoses were confirmed by clinical and laboratory methods were included in the patient group. Seventy-six patients, who were negative for all respiratory tract viruses, were included as the control group. The Panbio™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Rapid Panel test kit was used in the assays. The sensitivity values of the kit were 97.5%, 97.9%, and 33.33% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load below 20 Ct values. The sensitivity values of the kit were 16.7%, 36.5%, and 11.11% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load above 20 Ct. The kit's specificity was 100%. In conclusion, this kit demonstrated high sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IAV for viral loads below 20 Ct values, but the sensitivity values were not compatible with PCR positivity for lower viral loads over 20 Ct values. Rapid antigen tests may be preferred as a routine screening tool in communal environments, especially in symptomatic individuals, when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV with high caution.
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the performance characteristics of a rapid antigen test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), influenza A virus (IAV), and influenza B virus (IBV) (flu) compared with those of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. One hundred SARS-CoV-2, one hundred IAV, and twenty-four IBV patients whose diagnoses were confirmed by clinical and laboratory methods were included in the patient group. Seventy-six patients, who were negative for all respiratory tract viruses, were included as the control group. The Panbio™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Rapid Panel test kit was used in the assays. The sensitivity values of the kit were 97.5%, 97.9%, and 33.33% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load below 20 Ct values. The sensitivity values of the kit were 16.7%, 36.5%, and 11.11% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load above 20 Ct. The kit's specificity was 100%. In conclusion, this kit demonstrated high sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IAV for viral loads below 20 Ct values, but the sensitivity values were not compatible with PCR positivity for lower viral loads over 20 Ct values. Rapid antigen tests may be preferred as a routine screening tool in communal environments, especially in symptomatic individuals, when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV with high caution.
ABSTRACT
The gold standard in the definitive diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) due to their high sensitivity and specificity in detecting viral ribonucleic acid. However, while leaving two years behind in the pandemic, resources have come to the point of exhaustion in terms of both the economy and the manpower working in the field of health services. Therefore, the need for rapid, simple and accurate tests to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection continues. In this study, it was aimed to compare the performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RAgT) in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases with the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. In Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine COVID-19 Molecular Diagnosis Laboratory, SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive respiratory tract samples with viral loads of <25 Ct (cycle of treshold), 25-29 Ct, 30-35 Ct and 35Subject(s)
COVID-19
, COVID-19/diagnosis
, Humans
, RNA, Viral/analysis
, SARS-CoV-2
, Sensitivity and Specificity
ABSTRACT
(1) Background: The aim of this study was to produce in-house ELISAs which can be used to determine SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels directed against the spike protein (S), the S1 subunit of S and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of S in SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated and infected humans. (2) Methods: Three in-house ELISAs were developed by using recombinant proteins of SARS-CoV-2, namely the S, S1 and RBD proteins. Specificity and sensitivity evaluations of these tests were performed using sera from SARS-CoV-2-infected (n = 70) and SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated (n = 222; CoronaVac vaccine) humans in Istanbul, Turkey. The analyses for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were performed using the in-house ELISAs, a commercial ELISA (Abbott) and a commercial surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). We also analyzed archival human sera (n = 50) collected before the emergence of COVID-19 cases in Turkey. (3) Results: The sensitivity of the in-house S, S1 and RBD ELISAs was found to be 88.44, 90.17 and 95.38%, while the specificity was 72.27, 89.08 and 89.92%, respectively, when compared to the commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody test kit. The area under curve (AUC) values were 0.777 for the in-house S ELISA, 0.926 for the S1 ELISA, and 0.959 for the RBD ELISA. The kappa values were 0.62, 0.79 and 0.86 for the S, S1 and RBD ELISAs, respectively. (4) Conclusions: The in-house S1 and RBD ELISAs developed in this study have acceptable performance characteristics in terms of sensitivity, specificity, AUC and kappa values. In particular, the RBD ELISA seems viable to determine SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels, both in infected and vaccinated people, and help mitigate SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and spread.
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine the anti-S (receptor binding protein) RBD IgG antibody titers formed against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) and the neutralizing antibody inhibition percentages (nAb IH%) in blood samples taken after two doses of inactive or mRNA-based vaccine and a booster dose. Volunteers with two doses of inactivated CoronaVac (heterologous group; n = 75) and BioNTech (BNT)162b2 mRNA vaccine (homologous group; n = 75) were included in this study. All participants preferred the BNT162b2 vaccine as a booster dose. First, peripheral blood samples were taken 3 months after the second vaccine dose. Second, peripheral blood samples were taken 1 month after the booster dose. Anti-S-RBD IgG titers were determined by CMIA (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant). Neutralizing antibodies were detected by a surrogate neutralization assay (SARS-CoV-2 NeutraLISA, Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). The median age of the volunteers was 40 (IQR 29-47) years old. After the heterologous booster dose, anti-S-RBD IgG levels and neutralizing antibodies increased approximately 50-fold and 9-fold, respectively. Anti-S-RBD IgG titers increased by 9 and 57 times, respectively, while nAb IH% increased by 1.5 and 16 times, respectively, among those with heterologous reminder doses and those with and without a prior history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study showed that after the administration of a heterologous booster dose with BNT162b2 to those whose primary vaccination was with inactivated CoronaVac, the binding and neutralizing antibody levels were similar to those who received a homologous BNT162b2 booster dose. It was observed that the administration of heterologous and homologous booster doses resulted in the development of similar levels of neutralizing antibodies, independently from a prior history of COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection spreads rapidly around the world. The blood groups are recognized to influence susceptibility to certain viruses.The aim of this research was to determine any potential role of the patients' ABO and Rh blood groups in both the acquisition and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a growing global health problem, to find any marker for COVID-19 may help to identify high-risk individuals and ease the strain on health system. Methods: The patients who were hospitalized between March and August 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and had a documented ABO blood type in medical database were examined retrospectively. Patients were grouped as survivors (followed up in pandemic wards /or intensive care unit [ICU]) and non-survivors. Their ABO blood types were correlated with general population's blood types. The labaratory findings of patients were evaluated according to the blood types. Results: A total of 492 patients included, 233 (47.4%) were male. The mean age was 58.9±17.5. Data of ABO blood groups of 51966 individuals in general population was used as a control group; the number of the patients in Rh (-) blood type 0, were significantly lower than the control group (p=0.008). Among the whole patient group (survivors and non-survivors), Blood type A 210 (42%) was the most common and type AB 52 (10%) was the least common. However, no statistically significant difference was noted between survivors (pandemic wards/ICU) and non-survivors unlike the previous studies (p=0.514). No correlation was found between laboratory findings (Hemoglobin, red cell distribution width, platelet, white blood cell, lymphocyte, D-Dimer, C-reactive protein, ferritin) and ABO blood groups of COVID-19 patients (p>0.05). Conclusion: There was no association found between the ABO blood type and COVID-19 infection rate or disease severity. No evidence was noted to support the use of ABO blood type as a marker for COVID-19. Further efforts are warranted to better predict outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Monitoring the longevity of immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is vital to understanding the role of antibodies in preventing infection. Aims: To determine the quantitative IgG responses specific to the Spike-S1 (S1) receptor-binding domain (S1/RBD) region of the virus in serum samples taken between 4 weeks and 7 months after polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity in patients who are diagnosed with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Study Design: A longitudinal study. Methods: This study included 113 patients with a clinical and molecular diagnosis of COVID-19. The first and second serum samples were taken 1 and 7 months, respectively, after the PCR positivity. S1/RBD-specific IgG antibody response was assayed using anti-SARS-CoV- 2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) kit (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). The neutralizing antibodies were investigated in 57 patients whose IgG test results were above the cut-off value. Results: In 57 patients with SARS-CoV-2 IgG, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG quantitative antibody levels significantly decreased after 7 months (Z = −2.197, p = 0.028). A correlation was detected between the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and nAb percent inhibition (IH%) levels detected in 1 month (rs = 0.496, p < 0.001), but without significant correlation in serum samples taken on 7 months. The nAb IH% levels of the first and second were compared for COVID-19 severity and revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.256). In the second serum sample, the nAb IH%s of patients with moderate COVID-19 showed a statistically significant difference from patients with mild COVID-19 (p = 0.018), but without significant differences between severe and moderate or mild COVID-19. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 quantitative IgG antibody titers are significantly reduced at long-term follow-up (> 6 months). Due to the limited information on seroconversion, comprehensive studies should be conducted for long-term follow-up of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Longitudinal Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: CoronaVac, an inactivated whole-virion vaccine against COVID-19, has been shown to be safe with acceptable antibody responses by various clinical trials. AIMS: The objective was to investigate the post-vaccination antibody levels of both symptomatic and asymptomatic healthcare workers with or without the diagnosis of COVID-19 in an emergency department (ED) of a hospital serving as a pandemic hospital. METHODS: This single-centred, prospective study was conducted on 86 participants who were working as nurse or doctor in the ED. The volunteers were older than 18 years and either positive or negative for either computed tomography (CT), real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), or both. Thirty days after the second dose of CoronaVac (3 µg), the antibody levels were chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. RESULTS: Mean age of all participants were 33.1 ± 9.1 years. The antibody levels in the qRT-PCR( +) and CT( +) groups were significantly higher than the qRT-PCR( -) and CT( -) groups, respectively (p < 0.05). In the CT( +)/qRT-PCR( +) group, the antibody level was significantly higher than the CT( -)/qRT-PCR( -) and CT( -)/qRT-PCR( +) or CT( +)/qRT-PCR( -) group (p < 0.05). On the other hand, antibody levels in the hospitalized group were significantly higher than in the non-hospitalized group (p < 0.05). A significant positive correlation was observed between the time elapsed after vaccination and antibody levels of the participants (r = 0.343; p = 0.000). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, antibody responses of recovered patients COVID-19 diagnosed by both CT and qRT-PCR were much robust than the patients diagnosed by either one of the techniques or undiagnosed/disease-free participants suggesting that severity of the disease likely contributes to the antibody responses after vaccination with CoronaVac.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Young Adult , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Vaccines , Antibody Formation , Prospective Studies , PandemicsABSTRACT
Following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) and using only PCR for diagnosis, antibody tests have been rapidly developed by various commercial companies. There are differences between the sensitivity and specificity of these tests due to the usage of different viral target proteins and antibody subclasses. In order to evaluate the diagnostic use of these tests, we aimed to examine the diagnostic performance, especially sensitivity and specificity, of SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgA and IgG tests of various companies (Abbott, Roche, Euroimmun, Dia.Pro, Anshlabs, Vircell, UnScience and RedCell), which have different principles (ECLIA/CLIA, EIA, LFA). Current (n= 180) and past (n= 180) COVID-19 patients with clinical and molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine Hospital, Pandemic Polyclinic with suspected COVID-19 infection, were included in our study. The patients admitted within the first 3 weeks after the onset of symptoms were included in the current patient group, and those admitted at the third and after the third week were included in the past patient group. Serum samples (n= 180) obtained from Istanbul Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Blood Center between April and June 2018 before the COVID-19 pandemic were included in the study as a control group. All the tests included in our study were studied with the recommendations of the manufacturer companies. Between the IgG detection tests with different principles in patients with past COVID-19, the sensitivity and specificity values of the most effective tests were; 86.7%/99.4% (Abbott), 86.1%/98.9% (Dia.Pro), 91.3%/95% (RedCell). Between the IgM detection tests with different principles in current COVID-19 patients, the sensitivity and specificity values were; 67.8%/99.4% (Abbott), 68.9%/98.6% (Vircell), 50%/97.5% (RedCell). Abbott IgM with a kappa coefficient of 0.67 and Vircell IgM + IgA test with a kappa coefficient of 0.65 showed the best fit in patients with current COVID-19 infection. In patients with past COVID-19, Abbott IgG with 0.86 kappa coefficient and Dia.Pro IgG test with 0.85 kappa coefficient showed the best match. Due to the low sensitivity of IgM detection antibody tests, they should not be preferred instead of real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in routine diagnosis. IgG detection tests may be preferred to detect the antibody response and the titers in people who have had COVID-19 for population seroprevalence and especially therapeutic immune plasma production. However, it is thought that the combined use of both ECLIA/CLIA-based and EIA/ELISA-based tests together may be more effective in routine use for SARS-CoV-2 IgG tests.