ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess, by rapid tests, the immune status against COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers (HCW) with history of symptoms, and for whom SARS-CoV-2 detection was either not documented or negative. METHODS: Whole blood by finger prick and serum samples were taken from HCW for use with 2 rapid lateral flow tests and an automated immunoassay. RESULTS: Seventy-two HCWs were included, median duration between symptoms onset and serology sampling was 68 days. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected by rapid test in 11 HCW (15.3%) and confirmed in the 10 with available serum by the automated immunoassay. The frequency of ageusia or anosmia was higher in participants with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.029, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study, among symptomatic HCW during the first wave in France, showed that 15% had IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2, a higher seroprevalence than in the general population. Rapid lateral flow tests were highly concordant with automated immunoassay.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , Female , Humans , Immunoassay , Male , Middle Aged , Paris/epidemiology , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic StudiesABSTRACT
The worldwide demand for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing resulted in a shortage of diagnostic kits. RNA extraction step constitutes a major bottleneck to perform diagnostic. The aim of this study was to assess performances of different extraction-free SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays compared to a reference RT-PCR assay. The panel of evaluation consisted of 94 samples: 69 positive and 25 negative for SARS-CoV-2 by reference RT-PCR. Three extraction-free RT-PCR assays were assessed: (i) PrimeDirect® Probe RT-qPCR Mix (Takara), (ii) PrimeScript®RT-PCR (Takara), and (iii) SARS-CoV-2 SANSURE®BIOTECH Novel Coronavirus (Sansure). The overall sensitivity of PrimeDirect, PrimeScript and Sansure assays was 55.1 %, 69.6 % and 69.6 %, respectively. The sensitivity increased among samples with Ct<30: 91.9 % (n = 34/37), 89.2 % (n = 33/37) and 94.6 % (n = 35/37) for PrimeDirect, PrimeScript and Sansure assays, respectively. The specificity was 88 %, 100 % and 100 % for PrimeDirect, PrimeScript and Sansure assays, respectively. In the present study, we showed a good sensitivity of extraction-free PCR assays, especially for high viral loads (Ct<30), except PrimeDirect that displayed imperfect sensitivity and specificity. Despite a lower sensitivity for low viral loads, extraction-free reagents can provide a valuable option, cheaper, easier and less reagent consuming for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic, especially in laboratory with lower experience and equipment for molecular assays.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity , Viral LoadABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The use of efficient, reliable and sensitive PCR assays is a cornerstone in the race to contain the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In this work we performed an independent evaluation of the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Kit Researh Use Only (Altona) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: A comparative limit of detection (LoD) assessment was performed between RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 and the currently WHO recommended RT-PCR (WHO-PCR) workflow using a quantified clinical sample. Assessment of the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 assay was also performed using 83 primary clinical samples in comparison with the WHO-PCR. RESULTS: The RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated a slightly higher sensitivity than the WHO recommended assay with a limit of detection at 625 copies/mL instead of 1250 copies/mL for the WHO-PCR in our conditions. The overall percent agreement between RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 and WHO-PCR on 83 clinical samples was 97.6 % (81/83) with a sensitivity at 97.8 % (45/46) and specificity at 97.3 % (36/37). No cross reaction was encountered for the other human coronaviruses (HKU1, OC43, NL63, 229E). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 assay with the reference WHO assay, we observed a slightly better sensitivity of the RealStar® assay. It provides a robust option for all molecular biology laboratories, with a strong real-life LoD and is compatible with various real-time PCR platforms.