Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 18(3): e0283149, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2272096

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We evaluate the diagnostic performance of dried blood microsampling combined with a high-throughput microfluidic nano-immunoassay (NIA) for the identification of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG seropositivity. METHODS: We conducted a serological study among 192 individuals with documented prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and 44 SARS-CoV-2 negative individuals. Participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection had a long interval of 11 months since their qRT-PCR positive test. Serum was obtained after venipuncture and tested with an automated electrochemiluminescence anti-SARS-CoV-2 S total Ig reference assay, a commercial ELISA anti-S1 IgG assay, and the index test NIA. In addition, 109 participants from the positive cohort and 44 participants from the negative cohort participated in capillary blood collection using three microsampling devices: Mitra, repurposed glucose test strips, and HemaXis. Samples were dried, shipped by regular mail, extracted, and measured with NIA. RESULTS: Using serum samples, we achieve a clinical sensitivity of 98·33% and specificity of 97·62% on NIA, affirming the high performance of NIA in participants 11 months post infection. Combining microsampling with NIA, we obtain a clinical sensitivity of 95·05% using Mitra, 61·11% using glucose test strips, 83·16% using HemaXis, and 91·49% for HemaXis after automated extraction, without any drop in specificity. DISCUSSION: High sensitivity and specificity was demonstrated when testing micro-volume capillary dried blood samples using NIA, which is expected to facilitate its use in large-scale studies using home-based sampling or samples collected in the field.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin G , Microfluidics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
2.
Emerg Microbes Infect ; 11(1): 412-423, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585244

ABSTRACT

Although frequently reported since the beginning of the pandemic, questions remain regarding the impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) interaction with circulating respiratory viruses in coinfected patients. We here investigated dual infections involving early-pandemic SARS-CoV-2 and the Alpha variant and three of the most prevalent respiratory viruses, rhinovirus (RV) and Influenza A and B viruses (IAV and IBV), in reconstituted respiratory airway epithelial cells cultured at air-liquid interface. We found that SARS-CoV-2 replication was impaired by primary, but not secondary, rhino- and influenza virus infection. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 had no effect on the replication of these seasonal respiratory viruses. Inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 correlated better with immune response triggered by RV, IAV and IBV than the virus entry. Using neutralizing antibody against type I and III interferons, SARS-CoV-2 blockade in dual infections could be partly prevented. Altogether, these data suggested that SARS-CoV-2 interaction with seasonal respiratory viruses would be modulated by interferon induction and could impact SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology when circulation of other respiratory viruses is restored.


Subject(s)
Coinfection/virology , Influenza A virus/physiology , Influenza B virus/physiology , Respiratory System/virology , Rhinovirus/physiology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Virus Replication/physiology , Coinfection/immunology , Humans , Immunity, Innate , Interferons/physiology
3.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253321, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282300

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 offer new opportunities for testing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are the reference sample type, but oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) may be a more acceptable sample type in some patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study in a single screening center to assess the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) on OPS compared with reverse-transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) using NPS during the second pandemic wave in Switzerland. RESULTS: 402 outpatients were enrolled in a COVID-19 screening center, of whom 168 (41.8%) had a positive RT-qPCR test. The oropharyngeal Ag-RDT clinical sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal RT-qPCR was 81% (95%CI: 74.2-86.6). Two false positives were noted out of the 234 RT-qPCR negative individuals, which resulted in a clinical specificity of 99.1% (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) for the Ag-RDT. For cycle threshold values ≤ 26.7 (≥ 1E6 SARS-CoV-2 genomes copies/mL, a presumed cut-off for infectious virus), 96.3% sensitivity (95%CI: 90.7-99.0%) was obtained with the Ag-RDT using OPS. INTERPRETATION: Based on our findings, the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™ Covid-19 RDT with OPS samples, if taken by a trained person and high requirements regarding quality of the specimen, meet the criteria required by the WHO for Ag-RDTs (sensitivity ≥80% and specificity ≥97%) in a high incidence setting in symptomatic individuals.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Nasopharynx , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral/genetics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Humans , Nasopharynx/immunology , Nasopharynx/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Switzerland/epidemiology
4.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248921, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1173655

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals' characteristics providing best performance. METHODS: We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. RESULTS: Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0-91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1-100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7-93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4-100). For individuals presenting with fever 1-5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0). CONCLUSIONS: We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing , Point-of-Care Systems , Residence Characteristics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL