New Monoclonal Antibodies Specific for Different Epitopes of the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 and Its Major Variants: Additional Tools for a More Specific COVID-19 Diagnosis.

The emergence of the new pathogen SARS-CoV-2 determined a rapid need for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to detect the virus in biological fluids as a rapid tool to identify infected individuals to be treated or quarantined. The majority of commercially available antigenic tests for SARS-CoV-2 rely on the detection of N antigen in biologic fluid using anti-N antibodies, and their capacity to specifically identify subjects infected by SARS-CoV-2 is questionable due to several structural analogies among the N proteins of different coronaviruses. In order to produce new specific antibodies, BALB/c mice were immunized three times at 20-day intervals with a recombinant spike (S) protein. The procedure used was highly efficient, and 40 different specific mAbs were isolated, purified and characterized, with 13 ultimately being selected for their specificity and lack of cross reactivity with other human coronaviruses. The specific epitopes recognized by the selected mAbs were identified through a peptide library and/or by recombinant fragments of the S protein. In particular, the selected mAbs recognized different linear epitopes along the S1, excluding the receptor binding domain, and along the S2 subunits of the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 and its major variants of concern. We identified combinations of anti-S mAbs suitable for use in ELISA or rapid diagnostic tests, with the highest sensitivity and specificity coming from proof-of-concept tests using recombinant antigens, SARS-CoV-2 or biological fluids from infected individuals, that represent important additional tools for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

A CLEIA Antigen Assay in Diagnosis and Follow-Up of SARS-CoV-2-Positive Subjects.

This study includes 259 consecutive nasopharyngeal swabs which tested positive for a molecular SARS-CoV-2 test and 77 subjects who were followed longitudinally, with nasopharyngeal swabs performed weekly until clinical recovery and a negative result for the molecular test were reached. All swabs were also tested with a Lumipulse SARS-CoV-2 chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA) antigen assay. The antigen test was positive in 169 (65.3%) out of the 259 subjects, while no antigen was detected in 90 subjects (34.7%). In the antigen-positive subjects, clinical status moved slightly toward a more frequent presence of symptoms. Longitudinal follow-up shows how the time of negativization has a faster kinetic in the antigenic test than in the molecular test. Antigenic test result values, considered as a time-dependent covariate and log-transformed, were highly associated with the time to negative swab, with good prediction ability. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed a very good discrimination ability of antigenic tests in classifying negative swabs. The optimal cutoff which jointly maximized sensitivity and specificity was 1.55, resulting in an overall accuracy of 0.75, a sensitivity of 0.73, and a specificity of 0.83. After dichotomizing the antigenic test according to the previously determined cutoff value of 1.55, the time-dependent covariate Cox model again suggests a highly significant association of antigenic test values with the time to negative swab molecular: a subject with an antigenic test value lower than 1.55 had almost a 13-fold higher probability to also result negative in the molecular test compared to a subject with an antigenic test value higher than 1.55. IMPORTANCE Our work explores the possibility of using a sensible and reliable antigenic test in a wider range of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic and clinical applications. Furthermore, this tool seems particularly promising in follow-up with infected subjects, because while the molecular test frequently yields the persistence of low positivities, raising yet unanswered questions, this antigenic test shows more uniform and faster negativization during the evolution of the infection, somehow paralleling the dynamics of infectivity. Although more data will be required to definitely prove it, we believe these findings might be of great interest.

Molecular accuracy vs antigenic speed: SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.

The pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has hit every corner of the world faster than any infectious disease ever known. In this context, rapid and accurate testing of positive cases are essential to follow the test-trace-isolate strategy (TETRIS), which has proven to be a key approach to constrain viral spread. Here, we discuss how to interpret and combine molecular or/and antigen-based detection methods for SARS-CoV-2 as well as when they should be used. Their application can be cleverly designed as an algorithm to prevent viral dissemination according to distinct epidemiological contexts within surveillance programs.

Evaluation of FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Respiratory Samples from Mildly Symptomatic or Asymptomatic Patients.

Molecular tests are the gold standard to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but are associated with a diagnostic delay, while antigen detection tests can generate results within 20 min even outside a laboratory. In order to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Kit (Ag-RDT), two respiratory swabs were collected simultaneously from 501 patients, with mild or no coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related symptoms, and analyzed with both the Reverse Transcriptase-quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) and the FAST COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test. Results were then compared to determine clinical performance in a screening setting. We measured a precision of 97.41% (95% CI 92.42-99.15%) and a recall of 98.26% (95% CI 93.88-99.25%), with a specificity of 99.22% (95% CI 97.74-99.74%), a negative predictive value of 99.48% (95% CI 97.98-99.87%), and an overall accuracy of 99.00% (95% CI 97.69-99.68%). Concordance was described by a Kappa coefficient of 0.971 (95% CI 0.947-0.996). Considering short lead times, low cost, and opportunities for decentralized testing, the Ag-RDT test can enhance the efforts to control SARS-CoV-2 spread in several settings.

The Coris BioConcept COVID 19 Ag Respi-Strip, a field experience feedback.

This communication described how the Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Ag Respi-Strip test (Coris-Ag) was implemented in the workflow of our clinical microbiology laboratory for COVID-19 diagnosis. The diagnostic performance statistics (sensitivity, specificity) of the Coris-Ag were evaluated against a gold standard, the RealStar SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kit 1.0. Additionally, the effect of reading the Coris-Ag results at 30 min was compared to reading at 15 min. The Coris-Ag was performed on a total of 294 patients during two periods; 158 patients were tested during period 1 at the peak of the pandemic (April 6th to April 10th 2020) which returned a positivity rate of 17.1 %, and 136 patients during period 2 (April 12th to April 16th 2020) which returned a positivity rate of 11 %. Compared to the RT-PCR, the 15-minute Coris-Ag readings resulted in a sensitivity of 59.3 % with a 100 % specificity for the period 1 patients (n = 158) while the sensitivity decreased to 20 % for the period 2 patients (n = 136). The overall sensitivity was 38.1 % for both periods (n = 294). The corresponding 30-minute readings produced a 7 % increase in sensitivity with a specificity of 100 % (n = 294). The sensitivity of the strip test (15-min reading) for high viral loads (Ct <25) was 84.6 %.

Feasibility and Effectiveness Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Antigenic Tests in Mass Screening of a Pediatric Population and Correlation with the Kinetics of Viral Loads.

The gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). However, rapid antigen detection kits (Ag-RDTs), may offer advantages over NAAT in mass screening, generating results in minutes, both as laboratory-based test or point-of-care (POC) use for clinicians, at a lower cost. We assessed two different POC Ag-RDTs in mass screening versus NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of pediatric patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of IRCCS-Polyclinic of Sant'Orsola, Bologna (from November 2020 to April 2021). All patients were screened with nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-RNA and for antigen tests. Results were obtained from 1146 patients. The COVID-19 Ag FIA kit showed a baseline sensitivity of 53.8% (CI 35.4-71.4%), baseline specificity 99.7% (CI 98.4-100%) and overall accuracy of 80% (95% CI 0.68-0.91); the AFIAS COVID-19 Ag kit, baseline sensitivity of 86.4% (CI 75.0-93.9%), baseline specificity 98.3% (CI 97.1-99.1%) and overall accuracy of 95.3% (95% CI 0.92-0.99). In both tests, some samples showed very low viral load and negative Ag-RDT. This disagreement may reflect the positive inability of Ag-RDTs of detecting antigen in late phase of infection. Among all cases with positive molecular test and negative antigen test, none showed viral loads > 106 copies/mL. Finally, we found one false Ag-RDTs negative result (low cycle thresholds; 9 × 105 copies/mL). Our results suggest that both Ag-RDTs showed good performances in detection of high viral load samples, making it a feasible and effective tool for mass screening in actively infected children.

[COVID-19, deployment of antigenic tests in EHPAD]. / Covid-19, déploiement des tests antigéniques en Ehpad.

During the second epidemic wave of COVID-19 in the fall of 2020, residents of accommodation facilities for dependent elderly people were not totally confined. They were able to continue to receive visits from their families under a strict health protocol. But these facilities are very fragile, and many have been affected. The marketing of rapid detection tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using an antigenic method has made it possible to carry out massive screening campaigns for staff in these facilities since the beginning of November.

Frontline Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection at Emergency Department Admission by Third Generation Rapid Antigen Test: Can We Spare RT-qPCR?

To complement RT-qPCR testing for diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, many countries have introduced the use of rapid antigen tests. As they generally display lower real-life performances than expected, their correct positioning as frontline screening is still controversial. Despite the lack of data from daily clinical use, third generation microfluidic assays (such as the LumiraDx SARS-CoV-2 Ag test) have recently been suggested to have similar performances to RT-qPCR and have been proposed as alternative diagnostic tools. By analyzing 960 nasopharyngeal swabs from 960 subjects at the emergency department admissions of a tertiary COVID-19 hospital, LumiraDx assay demonstrated a specificity of 97% (95% CI: 96-98), and a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI: 82-89) in comparison with RT-qPCR, which increases to 91% (95% CI: 86-95) for samples with a cycle threshold ≤ 29. Fifty false-negative LumiraDx-results were confirmed by direct quantification of genomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA through droplet-digital PCR (median (IQR) load = 5880 (1657-41,440) copies/mL). Subgenomic N and E RNAs were detected in 52% (n = 26) and 56% (n = 28) of them, respectively, supporting the presence of active viral replication. Overall, the LumiraDx test complies with the minimum performance requirements of the WHO. Yet, the risk of a misrecognition of patients with active COVID-19 persists, and the need for confirmatory RT-qPCR should not be amended.

Recommendations for use of antigenic tests in the diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in the second pandemic wave: attitude in different clinical settings.

The high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 before and shortly after the onset of symptoms suggests that only diagnosing and isolating symptomatic patients may not be sufficient to interrupt the spread of infection; therefore, public health measures such as personal distancing are also necessary. Additionally, it will be important to detect the newly infected individuals who remain asymptomatic, which may account for 50% or more of the cases. Molecular techniques are the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the massive use of these techniques has generated some problems. On the one hand, the scarcity of resources (analyzers, fungibles and reagents), and on the other the delay in the notification of results. These two facts translate into a lag in the application of isolation measures among cases and contacts, which favors the spread of the infection. Antigen detection tests are also direct diagnostic methods, with the advantage of obtaining the result in a few minutes and at the very "pointof-care". Furthermore, the simplicity and low cost of these tests allow them to be repeated on successive days in certain clinical settings. The sensitivity of antigen tests is generally lower than that of nucleic acid tests, although their specificity is comparable. Antigenic tests have been shown to be more valid in the days around the onset of symptoms, when the viral load in the nasopharynx is higher. Having a rapid and real-time viral detection assay such as the antigen test has been shown to be more useful to control the spread of the infection than more sensitive tests, but with greater cost and response time, such as in case of molecular tests. The main health institutions such as the WHO, the CDC and the Ministry of Health of the Government of Spain propose the use of antigenic tests in a wide variety of strategies to respond to the pandemic. This document aims to support physicians involved in the care of patients with suspected SC2 infection, in the context of a growing incidence in Spain since September 2020, which already represents the second pandemic wave of COVID-19.