ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the serological response against SARS-CoV-2 in a multicenter study representative of the Spanish COVID pandemic. METHODS: IgG and IgM + IgA responses were measured on 1466 samples from 1236 Spanish COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital, two commercial ELISA kits (Vircell SL, Spain) based on the detection of antibodies against the viral spike protein and nucleoprotein, were used. RESULTS: Approximately half of the patients presented antibodies (56.8% were IgM + IgA positive and 43.0% were IgG positive) as soon as 2 days after the first positive PCR result. Serological test positivity increased with time from the PCR test, and 10 days after the first PCR result, 91.5% and 88.0% of the patients presented IgM + IgA and IgG antibodies, respectively. CONCLUSION: The high values of sensitivity attained in the present study from a relatively early period of time after hospitalization support the use of the evaluated serological assays as supplementary diagnostic tests for the clinical management of COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibody Formation , COVID-19/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Immunoglobulin A , Immunoglobulin G , Immunoglobulin M , Male , Middle Aged , Phosphoproteins/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Sex Factors , Spain , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of sample pooling compared to the individual analysis for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by using different commercial platforms for nucleic acid extraction and amplification. METHODS: A total of 3519 nasopharyngeal samples received at nine Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories were processed individually and in pools (342 pools of ten samples and 11 pools of nine samples) according to the existing methodology in place at each centre. RESULTS: We found that 253 pools (2519 samples) were negative and 99 pools (990 samples) were positive; with 241 positive samples (6.85%), our pooling strategy would have saved 2167 PCR tests. For 29 pools (made out of 290 samples), we found discordant results when compared to their correspondent individual samples, as follows: in 22 of 29 pools (28 samples), minor discordances were found; for seven pools (7 samples), we found major discordances. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for pooling were 97.10% (95% confidence interval (CI), 94.11-98.82), 100%, 100% and 99.79% (95% CI, 99.56-99.90) respectively; accuracy was 99.80% (95% CI, 99.59-99.92), and the kappa concordant coefficient was 0.984. The dilution of samples in our pooling strategy resulted in a median loss of 2.87 (95% CI, 2.46-3.28) cycle threshold (Ct) for E gene, 3.36 (95% CI, 2.89-3.85) Ct for the RdRP gene and 2.99 (95% CI, 2.56-3.43) Ct for the N gene. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high efficiency of pooling strategies for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing across different RNA extraction and amplification platforms, with excellent performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values.