Evaluation of a laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 antigen assay.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen tests are an essential part of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies. Rapid antigen tests are easy to use but less sensitive compared to nucleic acid amplification tests (NAT) and less suitable for large-scale testing. In contrast, laboratory-based antigen tests are suitable for high-throughput immunoanalyzers. Here we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the laboratory-based Siemens Healthineers SARS-CoV-2 Antigen (CoV2Ag) assay. METHODS: In a public test center, from 447 individuals anterior nasal swab specimens as well as nasopharyngeal swab specimens were collected. The nasal swab specimens were collected in sample inactivation medium and measured using the CoV2Ag assay. The nasopharyngeal swab specimens were measured by RT-PCR. Additionally, 9,046 swab specimens obtained for screening purposes in a tertiary care hospital were analyzed and positive CoV2Ag results confirmed by NAT. RESULTS: In total, 234/447 (52.3%) participants of the public test center were positive for SARS-CoV-2-RNA. Viral lineage B1.1.529 was dominant during the study. Sensitivity and specificity of the CoV2Ag assay were 88.5% (95%CI: 83.7-91.9%) and 99.5% (97.4-99.9%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 93.7% (97.4-99.9%) and 98.7% (97.4-99.9%) for swab specimens with cycle threshold values <30 and <25, respectively. Out of 9,046 CoV2Ag screening tests from hospitalized patients, 21 (0.2%) swab specimens were determined as false-positive by confirmatory NAT. CONCLUSIONS: Using sample tubes containing inactivation medium the laboratory-based high-throughput CoV2Ag assay is a very specific and highly sensitive assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasal swab specimens including the B1.1.529 variant. In low prevalence settings confirmation of positive CoV2Ag results by SARS-CoV-2-RNA testing is recommended.

External Validation of COVID-19 Risk Scores during Three Waves of Pandemic in a German Cohort-A Retrospective Study.

Several risk scores were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify patients at risk for critical illness as a basic step to personalizing medicine even in pandemic circumstances. However, the generalizability of these scores with regard to different populations, clinical settings, healthcare systems, and new epidemiological circumstances is unknown. The aim of our study was to compare the predictive validity of qSOFA, CRB65, NEWS, COVID-GRAM, and 4C-Mortality score. In a monocentric retrospective cohort, consecutively hospitalized adults with COVID-19 from February 2020 to June 2021 were included; risk scores at admission were calculated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the precision-recall curve were compared using DeLong's method and a bootstrapping approach. A total of 347 patients were included; 23.6% were admitted to the ICU, and 9.2% died in a hospital. NEWS and 4C-Score performed best for the outcomes ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. The easy-to-use bedside score NEWS has proven to identify patients at risk for critical illness, whereas the more complex COVID-19-specific scores 4C and COVID-GRAM were not superior. Decreasing mortality and ICU-admission rates affected the discriminatory ability of all scores. A further evaluation of risk assessment is needed in view of new and rapidly changing epidemiological evolution.

COVID-19 patient serum less potently inhibits ACE2-RBD binding for various SARS-CoV-2 RBD mutants.

As global vaccination campaigns against SARS-CoV-2 proceed, there is particular interest in the longevity of immune protection, especially with regard to increasingly infectious virus variants. Neutralizing antibodies (Nabs) targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 are promising correlates of protective immunity and have been successfully used for prevention and therapy. As SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) are known to affect binding to the ACE2 receptor and by extension neutralizing activity, we developed a bead-based multiplex ACE2-RBD inhibition assay (RBDCoV-ACE2) as a highly scalable, time-, cost-, and material-saving alternative to infectious live-virus neutralization tests. By mimicking the interaction between ACE2 and the RBD, this serological multiplex assay allows the simultaneous analysis of ACE2 binding inhibition to the RBDs of all SARS-CoV-2 VOCs and variants of interest (VOIs) in a single well. Following validation against a classical virus neutralization test and comparison of performance against a commercially available assay, we analyzed 266 serum samples from 168 COVID-19 patients of varying severity. ACE2 binding inhibition was reduced for ten out of eleven variants examined compared to wild-type, especially for those displaying the E484K mutation such as VOCs beta and gamma. ACE2 binding inhibition, while highly individualistic, positively correlated with IgG levels. ACE2 binding inhibition also correlated with disease severity up to WHO grade 7, after which it reduced.

COVID-19 in persons aged 70+ in an early affected German district: Risk factors, mortality and post-COVID care needs-A retrospective observational study of hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Cohorts of hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been studied in several countries since the beginning of the pandemic. So far, there is no complete survey of older patients in a German district that includes both outpatients and inpatients. In this retrospective observational cohort study, we aimed to investigate risk factors, mortality, and functional outcomes of all patients with COVID-19 aged 70 and older living in the district of Tübingen in the southwest of Germany. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all 256 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in one of the earliest affected German districts during the first wave of the disease from February to April 2020. To ensure inclusion of all infected patients, we analysed reported data from the public health department as well as the results of a comprehensive screening intervention in all nursing homes of the district (n = 1169). Furthermore, we examined clinical data of all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (n = 109). RESULTS: The all-cause mortality was 18%. Screening in nursing homes showed a point-prevalence of 4.6%. 39% of residents showed no COVID-specific symptoms according to the official definition at that time. The most important predictors of mortality were the need for inpatient treatment (odds ratio (OR): 3.95 [95%-confidence interval (CI): 2.00-7.86], p<0.001) and care needs before infection (non-hospitalized patients: OR: 3.79 [95%-CI: 1.01-14.27], p = 0.037, hospitalized patients: OR: 2.89 [95%-CI 1.21-6.92], p = 0.015). Newly emerged care needs were a relevant complication of COVID-19: 27% of previously self-sufficient patients who survived the disease were not able to return to their home environment after discharge from the hospital. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the importance of a differentiated view of risk groups and long-term effects within the older population. These findings should be included in the political and social debate during the ongoing pandemic to evaluate the true effect of COVID-19 on healthcare systems and individual functional status.