SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Diagnostics in China.

The COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant problem involving health systems worldwide. Several diagnostic methods are reported for detecting the coronavirus in clinical, research, and public health laboratories. rRT-PCR is considered the gold standard; however, as it required skilled personnel and special equipment, rapid antigen tests have been developed and used as first-line screening. The serologic testing of antibodies can also be used to enhance the detection sensitivity and accuracy, which are used to assess the overall infection rate. This review summarizes the molecular techniques and serologic assays widely used in China and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these techniques.

Evaluation of Commercially Available High-Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays for Serosurveillance and Related Applications.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serosurveys can estimate cumulative incidence for monitoring epidemics, requiring assessment of serologic assays to inform testing algorithm development and interpretation of results. We conducted a multilaboratory evaluation of 21 commercial high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays using blinded panels of 1,000 highly characterized specimens. Assays demonstrated a range of sensitivities (96%-63%), specificities (99%-96%), and precision (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.55-0.99). Durability of antibody detection was dependent on antigen and immunoglobulin targets; antispike and total Ig assays demonstrated more stable longitudinal reactivity than antinucleocapsid and IgG assays. Assays with high sensitivity, specificity, and durable antibody detection are ideal for serosurveillance, but assays demonstrating waning reactivity are appropriate for other applications, including correlation with neutralizing activity and detection of anamnestic boosting by reinfections. Assay performance must be evaluated in context of intended use, particularly in the context of widespread vaccination and circulation of SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Comparative performance of multiplex salivary and commercially available serologic assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralization titers.

Oral fluid (hereafter saliva) offers a non-invasive sampling method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, data comparing performance of salivary tests against commercially-available serologic and neutralizing antibody (nAb) assays are lacking. This study compared the performance of a laboratory-developed multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay targeting antibodies to nucleocapsid (N), receptor binding domain (RBD) and spike (S) antigens to three commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 serologic enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Ortho Vitros, Euroimmun, and BioRad) and nAb. Paired saliva and plasma samples were collected from 101 eligible COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors >14 days since PCR+ confirmed diagnosis. Concordance was evaluated using positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreement, and Cohen's kappa coefficient. The range between salivary and plasma EIAs for SARS-CoV-2-specific N was PPA: 54.4-92.1% and NPA: 69.2-91.7%, for RBD was PPA: 89.9-100% and NPA: 50.0-84.6%, and for S was PPA: 50.6-96.6% and NPA: 50.0-100%. Compared to a plasma nAb assay, the multiplex salivary assay PPA ranged from 62.3% (N) and 98.6% (RBD) and NPA ranged from 18.8% (RBD) to 96.9% (S). Combinations of N, RBD, and S and a summary algorithmic index of all three (N/RBD/S) in saliva produced ranges of PPA: 87.6-98.9% and NPA: 50-91.7% with the three EIAs and ranges of PPA: 88.4-98.6% and NPA: 21.9-34.4% with the nAb assay. A multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay demonstrated variable, but comparable performance to three commercially-available plasma EIAs and a nAb assay, and may be a viable alternative to assist in monitoring population-based seroprevalence and vaccine antibody response.

Sero-prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers: A multicenter study from Egypt.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a high risk for disease exposure. Given the limited availability of nucleic acid testing by PCR in low resource settings, serological assays can provide useful data on the proportion of HCWs who have recently or previously been infected. Therefore, in this study, we conducted an immunologic study to determine the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in two university hospitals in Egypt. METHODS: in this cross sectional study, HCWs who were working in SARS-CoV-2 Isolation Hospitals were interviewed. Estimating specific antibodies (IgM and IgG) against SARS-CoV-2 was carried out using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay targeting the Spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2 virus. RESULTS: Out of 111, 82 (74%) HCWs accepted to participate with a mean age of 31.5 ± 8.5 years. Anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies were detected in 38/82 (46.3%) of cases with a mean age of 31 years and female HCWs constituted 57.6% of cases. The highest rate of seropositivity was from the nurses (60.5%), and physicians (31.6%) with only (7.9%) technicians. Only 28/82 (34.1%) HCWs reported previous history of COVID19. We reported a statistically significant difference in the timing of exposure (p = 0.010) and the frequency of contact with COVID-19 cases (p = 0.040) between previously infected and on-infected HCWs. Longer time of recovery was reported from IgG positive HCWs (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: The high frequency of seropositive HCWs in investigated hospitals is alarming, especially among asymptomatic personnel. Confirmation of diseased HCWs (among seropositive ones) are warranted.

Comparative Performance of Five Commercially Available Serologic Assays To Detect Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and Identify Individuals with High Neutralizing Titers.

Accurate serological assays to detect antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to characterize the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify potential candidates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) donation. This study compared the performances of commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) with respect to detection of IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs). The diagnostic accuracy of five commercially available EIAs (Abbott, Euroimmun, EDI, ImmunoDiagnostics, and Roche) for detection of IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated using cross-sectional samples from potential CCP donors who had prior molecular confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 214) and samples from prepandemic emergency department patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 1,099). Of the 214 potential CCP donors, all were sampled >14 days since symptom onset and only a minority (n = 16 [7.5%]) had been hospitalized due to COVID-19; 140 potential CCP donors were tested by all five EIAs and a microneutralization assay. Performed according to the protocols of the manufacturers to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the sensitivity of each EIA ranged from 76.4% to 93.9%, and the specificity of each EIA ranged from 87.0% to 99.6%. Using a nAb titer cutoff value of ≥160 as the reference representing a positive test result (n = 140 CCP donors), the empirical area under the receiver operating curve for each EIA ranged from 0.66 (Roche) to 0.90 (Euroimmun). Commercial EIAs with high diagnostic accuracy to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not necessarily have high diagnostic accuracy to detect high nAb titers. Some but not all commercial EIAs may be useful in the identification of individuals with high nAb titers among convalescent individuals.