ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the performance characteristics of a rapid antigen test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), influenza A virus (IAV), and influenza B virus (IBV) (flu) compared with those of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. One hundred SARS-CoV-2, one hundred IAV, and twenty-four IBV patients whose diagnoses were confirmed by clinical and laboratory methods were included in the patient group. Seventy-six patients, who were negative for all respiratory tract viruses, were included as the control group. The Panbio™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Rapid Panel test kit was used in the assays. The sensitivity values of the kit were 97.5%, 97.9%, and 33.33% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load below 20 Ct values. The sensitivity values of the kit were 16.7%, 36.5%, and 11.11% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load above 20 Ct. The kit's specificity was 100%. In conclusion, this kit demonstrated high sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IAV for viral loads below 20 Ct values, but the sensitivity values were not compatible with PCR positivity for lower viral loads over 20 Ct values. Rapid antigen tests may be preferred as a routine screening tool in communal environments, especially in symptomatic individuals, when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV with high caution.
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the performance characteristics of a rapid antigen test developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), influenza A virus (IAV), and influenza B virus (IBV) (flu) compared with those of the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. One hundred SARS-CoV-2, one hundred IAV, and twenty-four IBV patients whose diagnoses were confirmed by clinical and laboratory methods were included in the patient group. Seventy-six patients, who were negative for all respiratory tract viruses, were included as the control group. The Panbio™ COVID-19/Flu A&B Rapid Panel test kit was used in the assays. The sensitivity values of the kit were 97.5%, 97.9%, and 33.33% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load below 20 Ct values. The sensitivity values of the kit were 16.7%, 36.5%, and 11.11% for SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV, respectively, in samples with a viral load above 20 Ct. The kit's specificity was 100%. In conclusion, this kit demonstrated high sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 and IAV for viral loads below 20 Ct values, but the sensitivity values were not compatible with PCR positivity for lower viral loads over 20 Ct values. Rapid antigen tests may be preferred as a routine screening tool in communal environments, especially in symptomatic individuals, when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2, IAV, and IBV with high caution.
ABSTRACT
The gold standard in the definitive diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) due to their high sensitivity and specificity in detecting viral ribonucleic acid. However, while leaving two years behind in the pandemic, resources have come to the point of exhaustion in terms of both the economy and the manpower working in the field of health services. Therefore, the need for rapid, simple and accurate tests to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection continues. In this study, it was aimed to compare the performance characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RAgT) in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases with the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) method. In Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine COVID-19 Molecular Diagnosis Laboratory, SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive respiratory tract samples with viral loads of <25 Ct (cycle of treshold), 25-29 Ct, 30-35 Ct and 35Subject(s)
COVID-19
, COVID-19/diagnosis
, Humans
, RNA, Viral/analysis
, SARS-CoV-2
, Sensitivity and Specificity
ABSTRACT
Numerous vaccines have been generated to decrease the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19. This study aims to evaluate the immunogenicity of the heterologous boosts by BioNTech against homologous boosts by CoronaVac at three-month intervals in two health care worker (HCW) cohorts, with or without prior COVID-19, for one year post-vaccination. This is a prospective cohort study in which the humoral responses of 386 HCWs were followed-up longitudinally in six main groups according to their previous COVID-19 exposure and vaccination status. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-RBD total antibody levels were measured and SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibody (NAbs) responses against the ancestral Wuhan and the Omicron variant were evaluated comparatively using international standard serum for Wuhan and Omicron, as well as with the aid of a conversion tool. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-RBD total Ab and Nab difference between with and without prior COVID-19, three months after two-dose primary vaccination with CoronaVac, was statistically significant (p = 0.001). In the subsequent follow-ups, this difference was not observed between the groups. Those previously infected (PI) and non-previously infected (NPI) groups receiving BioNTech as the third dose had higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike total Ab levels (14.2-fold and 17.4-fold, respectively, p = 0.001) and Nab responses (against Wuhan and Omicron) than those receiving CoronaVac. Ab responses after booster vaccination decreased significantly in all groups at the ninth-month follow-up (p < 0.05); however, Abs were still higher in all booster received groups than that in the primary vaccination. Abs were above the protective level at the twelfth-month measurement in the entire of the second BioNTech received group as the fourth dose of vaccination. In the one-year follow-up period, the increased incidence of COVID-19 in the groups vaccinated with two or three doses of CoronaVac compared with the groups vaccinated with BioNTech as a booster suggested that continuing the heterologous CoronaVac/BioNTech vaccination, revised according to current SARS-CoV-2 variants and with at least a six-month interval booster would be an effective and safe strategy for protection against COVID-19, particularly in health care workers.
ABSTRACT
In this research, blood samples of 47 patients infected by COVID were analyzed. The samples were taken on the 1st, 3rd and 6th month after the detection of COVID infection. Total antibody levels were measured against the SARS-CoV-2 N antigen and surrogate virus neutralization by serological methods. To differentiate COVID patients with different antibody levels, Fourier Transform InfraRed (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy methods were used. The spectroscopy data were analyzed by multivariate analysis, machine learning and neural network methods. It was shown, that analysis of serum using the above-mentioned spectroscopy methods allows to differentiate antibody levels between 1 and 6 months via spectral biomarkers of amides II and I. Moreover, multivariate analysis showed, that using Raman spectroscopy in the range between 1317 cm-1 and 1432 cm-1, 2840 cm-1 and 2956 cm-1 it is possible to distinguish patients after 1, 3, and 6 months from COVID with a sensitivity close to 100%.
ABSTRACT
Background: Monitoring the longevity of immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is vital to understanding the role of antibodies in preventing infection. Aims: To determine the quantitative IgG responses specific to the Spike-S1 (S1) receptor-binding domain (S1/RBD) region of the virus in serum samples taken between 4 weeks and 7 months after polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity in patients who are diagnosed with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Study Design: A longitudinal study. Methods: This study included 113 patients with a clinical and molecular diagnosis of COVID-19. The first and second serum samples were taken 1 and 7 months, respectively, after the PCR positivity. S1/RBD-specific IgG antibody response was assayed using anti-SARS-CoV- 2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) kit (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). The neutralizing antibodies were investigated in 57 patients whose IgG test results were above the cut-off value. Results: In 57 patients with SARS-CoV-2 IgG, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG quantitative antibody levels significantly decreased after 7 months (Z = −2.197, p = 0.028). A correlation was detected between the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and nAb percent inhibition (IH%) levels detected in 1 month (rs = 0.496, p < 0.001), but without significant correlation in serum samples taken on 7 months. The nAb IH% levels of the first and second were compared for COVID-19 severity and revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.256). In the second serum sample, the nAb IH%s of patients with moderate COVID-19 showed a statistically significant difference from patients with mild COVID-19 (p = 0.018), but without significant differences between severe and moderate or mild COVID-19. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 quantitative IgG antibody titers are significantly reduced at long-term follow-up (> 6 months). Due to the limited information on seroconversion, comprehensive studies should be conducted for long-term follow-up of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Longitudinal Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs) were among the first groups to be vaccinated in Turkey. The data to be obtained by the vaccination of HCWs would guide wide spread vaccination programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 330 HCWs working at Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty Hospital and vaccinated with inactive CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Sciences, China) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in two doses (28 days apart). Anti-Spike /RBD IgG levels were measured 14 days after the first dose and 28 days after the second dose. Chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) (ARCHITECT IgG II Quant test, Abbott, USA), which is 100% compatible with plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), was used. RESULTS: Of the participants, 211 (63.9%) were female, 119 (36.1%) were male, and mean age was 39.6 ± 7.7 years. In those without prior COVID-19 history; (n = 255) antibody positivity was detected as 48.2% (95% CI: 42.1-54.3) 14 days after the first dose of vaccine, and 99.2% (95% CI: 98.1-100) at day 28 after the second dose. Antibody titers were significantly lower in patients with hypertension (p = 0.011). In those with prior history of COVID-19 (n = 75); both the antibody positivity rates after the first vaccine (48.2% vs 100%, p = 0.000) and the anti-spike/RBD antibody levels after the second vaccine (with a ≥ 1050 AU/mL titer equivalent to PRNT 1/80 dilution) was significant than infection-naive group (25.9% vs. 54.7%, p = 0.000). Antibody positivity after two doses of vaccination for all study group was 99.4% (95% CI: 98.6-100). CONCLUSIONS: Two doses CoronaVac produce effective humoral immunity in HCWs. Antibody response is significantly higher in those with prior history of COVID-19 than infection-naive group. Given no significant benefit of the second dose, a single shot of vaccination may be sufficient for those with prior history of COVID-19. Monitoring humoral and cellular immune responses, considering new variants, is required to validate this approach.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Antibodies, Viral , Antibody Formation , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Health Personnel , Humans , Neutralization Tests , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) and using only PCR for diagnosis, antibody tests have been rapidly developed by various commercial companies. There are differences between the sensitivity and specificity of these tests due to the usage of different viral target proteins and antibody subclasses. In order to evaluate the diagnostic use of these tests, we aimed to examine the diagnostic performance, especially sensitivity and specificity, of SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgA and IgG tests of various companies (Abbott, Roche, Euroimmun, Dia.Pro, Anshlabs, Vircell, UnScience and RedCell), which have different principles (ECLIA/CLIA, EIA, LFA). Current (n= 180) and past (n= 180) COVID-19 patients with clinical and molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine Hospital, Pandemic Polyclinic with suspected COVID-19 infection, were included in our study. The patients admitted within the first 3 weeks after the onset of symptoms were included in the current patient group, and those admitted at the third and after the third week were included in the past patient group. Serum samples (n= 180) obtained from Istanbul Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Blood Center between April and June 2018 before the COVID-19 pandemic were included in the study as a control group. All the tests included in our study were studied with the recommendations of the manufacturer companies. Between the IgG detection tests with different principles in patients with past COVID-19, the sensitivity and specificity values of the most effective tests were; 86.7%/99.4% (Abbott), 86.1%/98.9% (Dia.Pro), 91.3%/95% (RedCell). Between the IgM detection tests with different principles in current COVID-19 patients, the sensitivity and specificity values were; 67.8%/99.4% (Abbott), 68.9%/98.6% (Vircell), 50%/97.5% (RedCell). Abbott IgM with a kappa coefficient of 0.67 and Vircell IgM + IgA test with a kappa coefficient of 0.65 showed the best fit in patients with current COVID-19 infection. In patients with past COVID-19, Abbott IgG with 0.86 kappa coefficient and Dia.Pro IgG test with 0.85 kappa coefficient showed the best match. Due to the low sensitivity of IgM detection antibody tests, they should not be preferred instead of real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in routine diagnosis. IgG detection tests may be preferred to detect the antibody response and the titers in people who have had COVID-19 for population seroprevalence and especially therapeutic immune plasma production. However, it is thought that the combined use of both ECLIA/CLIA-based and EIA/ELISA-based tests together may be more effective in routine use for SARS-CoV-2 IgG tests.