One Swab Fits All: Performance of a Rapid, Antigen-Based SARS-CoV-2 Test Using a Nasal Swab, Nasopharyngeal Swab for Nasal Collection, and RT-PCR Confirmation from Residual Extraction Buffer.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. In the performance of a rapid, antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 test (RAT), our study had 3 main objectives: to determine the accuracy of nasal swabs, the accuracy of using nasopharyngeal swabs for nasal collection (nasalNP), and the effectiveness of using residual extraction buffer for real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) confirmation of positive RAT (rPan). METHODS: Symptomatic adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the community were recruited into the study. Nasal samples were collected using either a nasalNP or nasal swab and tested immediately with the RAT in the individual's home by a health care provider. 500 µL of universal transport media was added to the residual extraction buffer after testing and sent to the laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 testing using RT-PCR. Parallel throat swabs tested with RT-PCR were used as the reference comparators. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-five individuals were included in the study (99 nasal swabs, 56 nasalNP). Sensitivities of nasal samples tested on the RAT using either nasal or nasalNP were 89.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 80.7%-94.6%] and 90.2% (95% CI 78.6%-96.7%), respectively. rPan positivity agreement compared to throat RT-PCR was 96.2%. CONCLUSIONS: RAT reliably detect SARS-CoV-2 from symptomatic adults in the community presenting within 7 days of symptom onset using nasal swabs or nasalNP. High agreement with rPan can avoid the need for collecting a second swab for RT-PCR confirmation or testing of variants of concern from positive RAT in this population.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies formed in response to the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1237 mRNA vaccine by commercial antibody tests.

BACKGROUND: With rapid approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the ability of clinical laboratories to detect vaccine-induced antibodies with available high-throughput commercial assays is unknown. We aimed to determine if commercial serology assays can detect vaccine-induced antibodies (VIAs) and understand the vaccination response. METHODS: This cohort study recruited healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities (receiving the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 products, respectively) who underwent serum collection pre-vaccination (BNT162b2 group), 2-weeks post vaccination (both groups), and pre-2nd dose (both groups). Sera were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG using four commercial assays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, DiaSorin Trimeric S IgG, and GenScript cPASS) to detect VIAs. Secondary outcomes included description of post-vaccination antibody response and correlation with neutralizing titers. RESULTS: 225 participants (177 receiving BNT162b2 and 48 receiving mRNA-1273) were included (median age 41 years; 66-78% female). Nucleocapsid IgG was found in 4.1% and 21.9% of the BNT162b2 (baseline) and mRNA-1273 (2-weeks post first dose). All anti-spike assays detected antibodies post-vaccination, with an average increase of 87.2% (range 73.8-94.3%; BNT162b2), and 25.2% (range 23.8-26.7%; mRNA-1273) between the first and last sampling time points (all p < 0.05). Neutralizing antibodies were detected at all post-vaccine timepoints for both vaccine arms, with increasing titers over time (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Anti-spike vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 IgG are detectable by commercially available high-throughput assays and increases over time. Prior to second dose of vaccination, neutralizing antibodies are detectable in 73-89% of individuals, suggesting most individuals would have some degree of protection from subsequent infection.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in multiple laboratory conditions and blood sample types.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 seroprevalence studies use serum/plasma samples to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Data supporting alternate specimen types and freeze-thaw antibody stability is lacking. The stability of IgG and other immunoglobulins in multiple blood sample types stored in differing conditions and multiple freeze-thaw cycles (FTCs) was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum, plasma, and heparinized-plasma samples were collected from COVID-19 recovered individuals. Samples underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies upon collection, after each of 10-12 FTCs, and storage at -70°C, -20°C, 4°C, and room-temperature for 10-12 days using four high-throughput commercial assays, two rapid-test cassettes, a manual ELISA, and a surrogate neutralization assay. RESULTS: All three specimen types were collected from 34 COVID-19 recovered seropositive individuals (≥21 days post-symptoms). Using the Architect and Liaison assays, a positive qualitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG result was detected daily up to 12 FTCs and up to 10 days of storage at different temperatures. An additional 25 plasma samples consistently demonstrated detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies daily after 12 FTCs and storage at -20°C using two rapid test cassette assays (SD Biosensor and Hangzhou All Test), manual (Beijing Wantai) and surrogate neutralization (GenScript) ELISAs, and two high-throughput assays (Roche Elecsys nucleocapsid and spike). IgM antibodies were less frequently detected by one of the rapid test cassette assays. CONCLUSIONS: Serum, plasma, and heparinized-plasma constitute reliable samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection. In particular, the IgG response was stable and reliably detected after multiple FTCs and storage at common laboratory conditions. IgM detection was variable due to the labile nature of this antibody class.

Acceptable performance of the Abbott ID NOW among symptomatic individuals with confirmed COVID-19.

Introduction. The ID NOW is FDA approved for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals within the first 7 days of symptom onset for COVID-19 if tested within 1 h of specimen collection.Gap statement. Clinical data on the performance of the ID NOW are limited, with many studies varying in their study design and/or having small sample size.Aim. In this study we aimed to determine the clinical performance of the ID NOW compared to conventional RT-PCR testing.Methodology. Adults with COVID-19 in the community or hospital were recruited into the study. Paired throat swabs were collected, with one throat swab transported immediately in an empty sterile tube to the laboratory for ID NOW testing, and the other transported in universal transport media and tested by an in-house SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay targeting the E gene.Results. In total, 133 individuals were included in the study; 129 samples were positive on either the ID NOW and/or RT-PCR. Assuming any positive result on either assay represents a true positive, positive per cent agreement (PPA) of the ID NOW compared to RT-PCR with 95 % confidence intervals was 89.1 % (82.0-94.1%) and 91.6 % (85.1-95.9%), respectively. When analysing individuals with symptom duration ≤7 days and who had the ID NOW performed within 1 h (n=62), ID NOW PPA increased to 98.2 %.Conclusion. Results from the ID NOW were reliable, especially when adhering to the manufacturer's recommendations for testing.

Clinical performance of the Abbott Panbio with nasopharyngeal, throat, and saliva swabs among symptomatic individuals with COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests used at the point-of-care, such as the Abbott Panbio, have great potential to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic. The Panbio is Health Canada approved for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic individuals within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset(s). Symptomatic adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the community were recruited into the study. Paired nasopharyngeal (NP), throat, and saliva swabs were collected, with one paired swab tested immediately with the Panbio, and the other transported in universal transport media and tested using real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We also prospectively evaluated results from assessment centers within the community. For those individuals, an NP swab was collected for Panbio testing and paired with RT-PCR results from parallel NP or throat swabs. One hundred and forty-five individuals were included in the study. Collection of throat and saliva was stopped early due to poorer performance (throat sensitivity 57.7%, n=61, and saliva sensitivity 2.6%, n=41). NP swab sensitivity was 87.7% [n=145, 95% confidence interval (CI) 81.0-92.7%]. There were 1641 symptomatic individuals tested by Panbio in assessment centers with 268/1641 (16.3%) positive for SARS-CoV-2. There were 37 false negatives and 2 false positives, corresponding to a sensitivity and specificity of 86.1% [95% CI 81.3-90.0%] and 99.9% [95% CI 99.5-100.0%], respectively. The Panbio test reliably detects most cases of SARS-CoV-2 from adults in the community setting presenting within 7 days of symptom onset using nasopharyngeal swabs. Throat and saliva swabs are not reliable specimens for the Panbio.