Comparison of Nucleocapsid Antigen with Strand-specific Reverse-Transcription PCR for Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background . Tests that sensitively detect the presence of actively replicating SARS-CoV-2 may improve patient care by allowing the safe and timely discontinuation of isolation. Correlates of active replication include nucleocapsid antigen and virus minus-strand RNA. Methods . Qualitative agreement of the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) with minus-strand RNA was determined using 402 upper respiratory specimens from 323 patients previously tested using a laboratory-developed SARS-CoV-2 strand-specific RT-qPCR. Nucleocapsid antigen levels, minus-strand and plus-strand cycle threshold values, as well as virus culture, were used to evaluate discordant specimens. Receiver operating characteristic curves were also used to identify virus RNA thresholds for active replication, including values harmonized to the World Health Organization International Standard. Results . Overall agreement was 92.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.0 – 94.5], positive percent agreement was 90.6% (95% CI: 84.4 – 95.0), and negative percent agreement was 92.8% (95% CI: 89.0 – 95.6). The kappa coefficient was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77 – 0.88). Discordant specimens contained low levels of nucleocapsid antigen and minus-strand RNA. 84.8% (28/33) were negative by culture. Sensitivity-optimized plus-strand RNA thresholds for active replication were 31.6 cycles or 3.64 log10 IU/mL;resulting in 100.0% sensitivity (95% CI: 97.6 to 100.0) and 55.9 specificity (95% CI: 49.7 to 62.0). Conclusions . Detection of nucleocapsid antigen by CLIA performs equivalently to minus-strand detection via strand-specific RT-qPCR, though these methods may overestimate replication-competent virus compared to culture. Careful implementation of biomarkers for actively replicating SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to inform infection control decision-making and patient management.

Long-Term Accuracy of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Interferon-γ Release Assay and Its Application in Household Investigation.

BACKGROUND: An immunodiagnostic assay that sensitively detects a cell-mediated immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is needed for epidemiological investigation and for clinical assessment of T- cell-mediated immune response to vaccines, particularly in the context of emerging variants that might escape antibody responses. METHODS: The performance of a whole blood interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release assay (IGRA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific T cells was evaluated in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescents tested serially up to 10 months post-infection and in healthy blood donors. SARS-CoV-2 IGRA was applied in contacts of households with index cases. Freshly collected blood in the lithium heparin tube was left unstimulated, stimulated with a SARS-CoV-2 peptide pool, and stimulated with mitogen. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity and specificity of IGRA were 84.5% (153/181; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.0-89.0) and 86.6% (123/142; 95% CI: 80.0-91.2), respectively. The sensitivity declined from 100% (16/16; 95% CI: 80.6-100) at 0.5-month post-infection to 79.5% (31/39; 95% CI: 64.4-89.2) at 10 months post-infection (P < .01). The IFN-γ response remained relatively robust at 10 months post-infection (3.8 vs 1.3 IU/mL, respectively). In 14 households, IGRA showed a positivity rate of 100% (12/12) and 65.2% (15/23), and IgG of 50.0% (6/12) and 43.5% (10/23) in index cases and contacts, respectively, exhibiting a difference of + 50% (95% CI: +25.4 to +74.6) and +21.7% (95% CI: +9.23 to +42.3), respectively. Either IGRA or IgG was positive in 100% (12/12) of index cases and 73.9% (17/23) of contacts. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 IGRA is a useful clinical diagnostic tool for assessing cell-mediated immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

Case-Control Study of Individuals with Discrepant Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein SARS-CoV-2 IgG Results.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection vary widely in performance. However, there are limited prospectively-collected data on assay performance, and minimal clinical information to guide interpretation of discrepant results. METHODS: Over a 2-week period, 1080 consecutive plasma samples submitted for clinical SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing were tested in parallel for anti-nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N, Abbott) and anti-spike IgG (anti-S1, EUROIMMUN). Chart review was conducted for samples testing positive or borderline on either assay, and for an age/sex-matched cohort of samples negative by both assays. CDC surveillance case definitions were used to determine clinical sensitivity/specificity and conduct receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. RESULTS: There were 52 samples positive by both methods, 2 positive for anti-N only, 34 positive for anti-S1 only, and 27 borderline for anti-S1. Of the 34 individuals positive for anti-S1 alone, 8 (24%) had confirmed COVID-19. No anti-S1 borderline cases were positive for anti-N or had confirmed/probable COVID-19. The anti-N assay was less sensitive (84.2% [95% CI 72.1-92.5%] vs 94.7% [95% CI 85.4-98.9%]) but more specific (99.2% [95% CI 95.5-100%] vs 86.9% [95% CI 79.6-92.3%]) than anti-S1. Abbott anti-N sensitivity could be improved to 96.5% with minimal effect on specificity if the index threshold was lowered from 1.4 to 0.6. CONCLUSION: Real-world concordance between different serologic assays may be lower than previously described in retrospective studies. These findings have implications for the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG results, especially with the advent of spike antigen-targeted vaccination, as a subset of patients with true infection are anti-N negative and anti-S1 positive.

Plasma as an alternative COVID-19 diagnostic specimen in a hospitalized patient negative for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal swab.

We present the case of an inpatient with pneumonia and repeatedly negative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 testing. In such challenging cases, alternative diagnostic options include lower respiratory tract and plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing, of which the latter may be particularly useful where bronchoscopy is deferred due to clinical factors or transmission risk.

Large-Scale Testing of Asymptomatic Healthcare Personnel for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

Large-scale, 1-time testing of >12,000 asymptomatic healthcare personnel in California, USA, during April-June 2020 showed that prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was low (<1%). Testing might identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, including some with high viral burden, enabling prompt implementation of measures to limit nosocomial spread.

Evaluation of Abbott anti-SARS-CoV-2 CMIA IgG and Euroimmun ELISA IgG/IgA assays in a clinical lab.

BACKGROUND: We report our findings of test performance especially specificity of a fully automated Abbott Architect anti-SARS-CoV-2 CMIA IgG and Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgA/IgG in human plasma. METHODS: We used positive cohort of 97 samples from Covid-19 patients or healthcare workers, collected at late time points from symptom onsets. We also included another cohort of 215 samples as negative controls, 78 of which had positive serology test results of other infectious diseases or autoimmunity. Assay specificity was assessed by using a total of 847 anonymized samples which were collected before the Covid-19 pandemic from local patient populations seeking clinical care for rheumatoid diseases, thyroid cancer, and therapeutic drug monitoring. RESULTS: Abbott IgG, Euroimmun IgG/IgA had high precision, demonstrated by both intra- and inter-day CVs of <2%. There was no Abbott or Euroimmun IgG assay cross reactivity in the 78 samples with positive serology of non-SARS-CoV-2 infectious diseases and positive autoimmune antibodies. The Abbott IgG has specificity of 99.6%, while Euroimmun IgG and IgA were as high as 91.5% and 71.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation confirmed high specificity of the Abbott IgG assay, while it was lower for Euroimmun IgG. Euroimmun IgA has suboptimal specificity which may limit its clinical use. Assay sensitivity was high for both Abbott and Euroimmun IgG assays.