Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Viruses ; 14(2)2022 02 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1674819

ABSTRACT

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , Neutralization Tests/methods , Neutralization Tests/standards , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Reference Standards , Sensitivity and Specificity
2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(10)2021 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1444355

ABSTRACT

To provide initial data on local SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology and spread in indigenous communities in north-eastern Colombia, respiratory swabs and serum samples from volunteers of indigenous communities were examined in March and April 2021. Samples from non-indigenous Colombians from the same villages were included as well. While previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was assessed by analysing serum samples for IgG and IgM with a rapid antibody point-of-care-test (POCT), screening for active infections was carried out with an antigen POCT test and real-time PCR from nasal swabs. In 380 indigenous and 72 non-indigenous volunteers, 61 (13.5%) active infections and an additional 113 (25%) previous infections were identified using diagnostic serology and molecular assays. Previous infections were more frequent in non-indigenous volunteers, and relevant associations of clinical features with active or previous SARS-CoV-2 infections were not observed. Symptoms reported were mild to moderate. SARS-CoV-2 was frequent in the assessed Colombian indigenous communities, as 38.5% of the study participants showed signs of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, which confirms the need to include these indigenous communities in screening and vaccination programs.

3.
J Clin Med ; 10(11)2021 May 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389412

ABSTRACT

This study was performed as a head-to-head comparison of the performance characteristics of (1) two SARS-CoV-2-specific rapid antigen assays with real-time PCR as gold standard as well as (2) a fully automated high-throughput transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay and real-time PCR in a latent class analysis-based test comparison without a gold standard with several hundred samples in a low prevalence "real world" setting. Recorded sensitivity and specificity of the NADAL and the LumiraDx antigen assays and the Hologic Aptima SARS-CoV-2 TMA assay were 0.1429 (0.0194, 0.5835), 0.7644 (0.7016, 0.8174), and 0.7157 (0, 1) as well as 0.4545 (0.2022, 0.7326), 0.9954 (0.9817, 0.9988), and 0.9997 (not estimable), respectively. Agreement kappa between the positive results of the two antigen-based assays was 0.060 (0.002, 0.167) and 0.659 (0.492, 0.825) for TMA and real-time PCR. Samples with low viral load as indicated by cycle threshold (Ct) values > 30 were generally missed by both antigen assays, while 1:10 pooling suggested higher sensitivity of TMA compared to real-time PCR. In conclusion, both sensitivity and specificity speak in favor of the use of the LumiraDx rather than the NADAL antigen assay, while TMA results are comparably as accurate as PCR, when applied in a low prevalence setting.

4.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(3)2021 Mar 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1125041

ABSTRACT

Due to the beginning of vaccination against COVID-19, serological discrimination between vaccine-associated humoral response and serology-based surveillance of natural SARS-CoV-2 infections as well as breakthrough infections becomes an issue of relevance. Here, we assessed the differentiated effects of the application of an RNA vaccine using SARS-CoV-2 spike protein epitopes on the results of both anti-spike protein-based serology (EUROIMMUN) and anti-nucleocapsid-based serology (VIROTECH). A total of 80 serum samples from vaccinees acquired at different time points after vaccination was assessed. While positive or borderline serological response in the anti-spike protein assay was observed for all samples (90% both IgG and IgA, 6.3% IgA only, 3.8% borderline IgG only), only a single case of a falsely positive IgM was observed for the anti-nucleocapsid assay as expected due to this assay's specificity. Positive anti-spike protein antibodies were already detectable in the second week after the first dose of vaccination, with higher titers after the second dose of the vaccine. In conclusion, the combined application of anti-spike protein-based serology and anti-nucleocapsid-based serology will provide a useful option for the discrimination of vaccination response and natural infection.

5.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(1)2021 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067692

ABSTRACT

Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes.

6.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(1)2021 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1011437

ABSTRACT

Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes.

7.
Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) ; 10(3): 178-185, 2020 Sep 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-801161

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: To efficiently monitor the COVID-19 pandemic for surveillance purposes, reliable serological rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are desirable for settings where well-established high-throughput bench-top solutions are not available. Here, we have evaluated such an RDT. METHODS: We have assessed the Xiamen AmonMed Biotechnology COVID-19 IgM/IgG test kit (Colloidal gold) and the EUROIMMUN benchtop assay with serum samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 disease. Samples from patients with Epstein-Barr-virus (EBV) infection and blood donors were used for specificity testing. RESULTS: For the colloid gold rapid test and the EUROIMMUN assay, the study indicated overall sensitivity of 15.2% and 67.4%, respectively, while specificity of 99.0% and 97.9% with the blood donor sera, as well as 100% and 96.8% with the EBV-patients, were observed, respectively. An association of the time period between positive PCR results and serum acquisition with serological test positivity could be observed for the immunologlobulin G subclass of the EUROIMMUN assay only. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of acceptable specificity of the assessed RDT, the detected poor sensitivity leaves room for improvement. The test results remain difficult to interpret and therefore the RDT can currently not be recommended for routine diagnostic or surveillance use.

8.
Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp) ; 10(3): 156-164, 2020 Aug 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-721394

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the automated cartridge-based PCR approach ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay targeting the ORF-sequence and the N-gene of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In line with the suggestions by Rabenau and colleagues, the automated ARIES SARS-CoV-2 Assay was challenged with strongly positive samples, weakly positive samples and negative samples. Further, intra-assay and inter-assay precision as well as the limit-of-detection (lod) were defined with quantified target RNA and DNA. The Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-Cov-2 Assay was used as gold standard. RESULTS: Concordance between the ARIES assay and the Cepheid assay was 100% for strongly positive samples and for negative samples, respectively. For weakly positive samples as confirmed applying the Cepheid assay, a relevant minority of 4 out of 15 samples (26.7%) went undetected by the ARIES assay. Intra- and inter-assay precision were satisfactory, while the lod was in the 103 DNA copies/reaction-range, in the 103 virus copies/reaction-range, or in the 103-104 free RNA copies/reaction-range in our hands. CONCLUSIONS: The automated ARIES assay shows comparable test characteristics as the Cepheid assay focusing on strongly positive and negative samples but a slightly reduced sensitivity with weakly positive samples. Decisions on diagnostic use should include considerations on the lod.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL