ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for further research evaluating the validity of conducting a battery of neuropsychological assessments virtually compared with face-to-face administration. Previous research has suggested that some neuropsychological assessments yield valid results when administered virtually, however, much of the previous research focused on older adults. To determine the validity of virtually administered neuropsychological tests, 28 healthy participants were assessed using a within-subjects, counter-balanced design. Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery covering tests of general intellectual functioning, memory and attention, executive functioning, language and information processing speed, as well as effort. There was no significant difference between face-to-face administration of the neuropsychological battery compared with virtual administration for the majority of the tests used. However, there were significant differences in the Colour Naming Task, with participants making fewer errors on the colour naming task and inhibition/switching task when administered virtually compared with face-to-face administration. There was also a significant age cohort effect in the inhibition/switching task. There was also a trending significant difference in mode of administration for the Verbal Fluency Task. Virtually administered neuropsychological assessments largely provide a valid alternative to face-to-face assessments; however, consideration must be given to test selection as well as the population of participants that are being assessed. Other important considerations must focus on preserving the security and integrity of test materials, as well as administration in a medico-legal setting. Future research should focus on validating assessments with specific patient populations and developing a neuropsychological assessment battery using information technology.
ABSTRACT
Effective public health measures against SARS-CoV-2 require granular knowledge of population-level immune responses. We developed a Tripartite Automated Blood Immunoassay (TRABI) to assess the IgG response against three SARS-CoV-2 proteins. We used TRABI for continuous seromonitoring of hospital patients and blood donors (n = 72'250) in the canton of Zurich from December 2019 to December 2020 (pre-vaccine period). We found that antibodies waned with a half-life of 75 days, whereas the cumulative incidence rose from 2.3% in June 2020 to 12.2% in mid-December 2020. A follow-up health survey indicated that about 10% of patients infected with wildtype SARS-CoV-2 sustained some symptoms at least twelve months post COVID-19. Crucially, we found no evidence of a difference in long-term complications between those whose infection was symptomatic and those with asymptomatic acute infection. The cohort of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects represents a resource for the study of chronic and possibly unexpected sequelae.
ABSTRACT
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibody responses to the spike (S) protein monomer, S protein native trimeric form, or the nucleocapsid (N) proteins were evaluated in cohorts of individuals with acute infection (n = 93) and in individuals enrolled in a postinfection seroprevalence population study (n = 578) in Switzerland. Commercial assays specific for the S1 monomer, for the N protein, or within a newly developed Luminex assay using the S protein trimer were found to be equally sensitive in antibody detection in the acute-infection-phase samples. Interestingly, compared to anti-S antibody responses, those against the N protein appear to wane in the postinfection cohort. Seroprevalence in a "positive patient contacts" group (n = 177) was underestimated by N protein assays by 10.9 to 32.2%, while the "randomly selected" general population group (n = 311) was reduced by up to 45% relative to the S protein assays. The overall reduction in seroprevalence targeting only anti-N antibodies for the total cohort ranged from 9.4 to 31%. Of note, the use of the S protein in its native trimer form was significantly more sensitive compared to monomeric S proteins. These results indicate that the assessment of anti-S IgG antibody responses against the native trimeric S protein should be implemented to estimate SARS-CoV-2 infections in population-based seroprevalence studies.IMPORTANCE In the present study, we have determined SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in sera of acute and postinfection phase subjects. Our results indicate that antibody responses against viral S and N proteins were equally sensitive in the acute phase of infection, but that responses against N appear to wane in the postinfection phase where those against the S protein persist over time. The most sensitive serological assay in both acute and postinfection phases used the native S protein trimer as the binding antigen, which has significantly greater conformational epitopes for antibody binding compared to the S1 monomer protein used in other assays. We believe these results are extremely important in order to generate correct estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the general population. Furthermore, the assessment of antibody responses against the trimeric S protein will be critical to evaluate the durability of the antibody response and for the characterization of a vaccine-induced antibody response.