Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 seroassay sensitivity: a systematic review and modelling study.

BackgroundSerological surveys have been the gold standard to estimate numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections, the dynamics of the epidemic, and disease severity. Serological assays have decaying sensitivity with time that can bias their results, but there is a lack of guidelines to account for this phenomenon for SARS-CoV-2.AimOur goal was to assess the sensitivity decay of seroassays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections, the dependence of this decay on assay characteristics, and to provide a simple method to correct for this phenomenon.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 serology studies. We included studies testing previously diagnosed, unvaccinated individuals, and excluded studies of cohorts highly unrepresentative of the general population (e.g. hospitalised patients).ResultsOf the 488 screened studies, 76 studies reporting on 50 different seroassays were included in the analysis. Sensitivity decay depended strongly on the antigen and the analytic technique used by the assay, with average sensitivities ranging between 26% and 98% at 6 months after infection, depending on assay characteristics. We found that a third of the included assays departed considerably from manufacturer specifications after 6 months.ConclusionsSeroassay sensitivity decay depends on assay characteristics, and for some types of assays, it can make manufacturer specifications highly unreliable. We provide a tool to correct for this phenomenon and to assess the risk of decay for a given assay. Our analysis can guide the design and interpretation of serosurveys for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens and quantify systematic biases in the existing serology literature.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies up to 25 April 2020 and public health implications.

We reviewed the diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests. Random-effects models yielded a summary sensitivity of 82% for IgM, and 85% for IgG and total antibodies. For specificity, the pooled estimate were 98% for IgM and 99% for IgG and total antibodies. In populations with ≤ 5% of seroconverted individuals, unless the assays have perfect (i.e. 100%) specificity, the positive predictive value would be ≤ 88%. Serological tests should be used for prevalence surveys only in hard-hit areas.

Laboratory-Based SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain Serologic Assays Perform with Equivalent Sensitivity and Specificity to Commercial FDA-EUA Approved Tests.

During early phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, many research laboratories repurposed their efforts towards developing diagnostic testing that could aid public health surveillance while commercial and public diagnostic laboratories developed capacity and validated large scale testing methods. Simultaneously, the rush to produce point-of-care and diagnostic facility testing resulted in FDA Emergency Use Authorization with scarce and poorly validated clinical samples. Here, we review serologic test results from 186 serum samples collected in early phases of the pandemic (May 2020) from skilled nursing facilities tested with six laboratory-based and two commercially available assays. Serum neutralization titers were used to set cut-off values using positive to negative ratio (P/N) analysis to account for batch effects. We found that laboratory-based receptor binding domain (RBD) binding assays had equivalent or superior sensitivity and specificity compared to commercially available tests. We also determined seroconversion rate and compared with qPCR outcomes. Our work suggests that research laboratory assays can contribute reliable surveillance information and should be considered important adjuncts to commercial laboratory testing facilities during early phases of disease outbreaks.

Current methods for diagnosis of human coronaviruses: pros and cons.

The current global fight against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to flatten the transmission curve is put forth by the World Health Organization (WHO) as there is no immediate diagnosis or cure for COVID-19 so far. In order to stop the spread, researchers worldwide are working around the clock aiming to develop reliable tools for early diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) understanding the infection path and mechanisms. Currently, nucleic acid-based molecular diagnosis (real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test) is considered the gold standard for early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Antibody-based serology detection is ineffective for the purpose of early diagnosis, but a potential tool for serosurveys, providing people with immune certificates for clearance from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, there are various blooming methods developed these days. In this review, we summarise different types of coronavirus discovered which can be transmitted between human beings. Methods used for diagnosis of the discovered human coronavirus (SARS, MERS, COVID-19) including nucleic acid detection, gene sequencing, antibody detection, antigen detection, and clinical diagnosis are presented. Their merits, demerits and prospects are discussed which can help the researchers to develop new generation of advanced diagnostic tools for accurate and effective control of human coronavirus transmission in the communities and hospitals.

A review post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 serological test: Method and antibody titer response.

The development of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is one of the most important efforts in controlling the pandemic. Serological tests are used to identify highly reactive human donors for convalescent plasma therapy, measuring vaccine efficacy and durability. This review article presents a review of serology tests and how antibody titers in response to vaccines have been developed. Some of the serological test methods discussed are Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT), Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), and Chemiluminescent Micro-particle Immunoassay (CMIA). This review can provide an understanding of the application of the body's immune response to vaccines to get some new strategies for vaccines.

Array-Based Multiplex and High-Throughput Serology Assays.

The detection of antibody responses using serological tests provides means to diagnose infections, follow disease transmission, and monitor vaccination responses. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, highlighted the need for rapid development of robust and reliable serological tests to follow disease spreading. Moreover, the rise of SARS-CoV-2 variants emphasized the need to monitor their transmission and prevalence in the population. For this reason, multiplex and flexible serological assays are needed to allow for rapid inclusion of antigens representing new variants as soon as they appear. In this chapter, we describe the generation and application of a multiplex serological test, based on bead array technology, to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a high-throughput manner, using only a few microliters of sample. This method is currently expanding to include a multi-disease antigen panel that will allow parallel detection of antibodies towards several infectious agents.

Accuracy of serological tests for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1 2020 to September 2 2022. We included studies that measured the sensitivity, specificity or both qualities of a COVID-19 serological test and a reference standard of a viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The risk of bias was assessed by using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The primary outcomes included overall sensitivity and specificity, as stratified by the methods of serological testing [enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)] and immunoglobulin classes (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum-specific sensitivity and specificity within the subgroups, as defined by study or participant characteristics, which included the time from the onset of symptoms, testing via commercial kits or an in-house assay, antigen target, clinical setting, serological kit as the index test and the type of specimen for the RT-PCR reference test. Results: Eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-five references were identified and 169 studies included. Overall, we judged the risk of bias to be high in 47.9 % (81/169) of the studies, and a low risk of applicability concerns was found in 100% (169/169) of the studies. For each method of testing, the pooled sensitivity of the ELISAs ranged from 81 to 82%, with sensitivities ranging from 69 to 70% for the LFIAs and 77% to 79% for the CLIAs. Among the evaluated tests, IgG (80-81%)-based tests exhibited better sensitivities than IgM-based tests (66-68%). IgG/IgM-based CLIA had the highest sensitivity [87% (86-88%)]. All of the tests displayed high specificity (97-98%). Heterogeneity was observed in all of the analyses. The detection of nucleocapsid protein (77-80%) as the antigen target was found to offer higher sensitivity results than surface protein detection (66-68%). Sensitivity was higher in the in-house assays (78-79%) than in the commercial kits (47-48%). Conclusion: Among the evaluated tests, ELISA and CLIA tests performed better in terms of sensitivity than did the LFIA. IgG-based tests had higher sensitivity than IgM-based tests, and combined IgG/IgM test-based CLIA tests had the best overall diagnostic test accuracy. The type of sample, serological kit and timing of use of the specific tests were associated with the diagnostic accuracy. Due to the limitations of the serological tests, other techniques should be quickly approved to provide guidance for the correct diagnosis of COVID-19.

Borrelia multiplex: a bead-based multiplex assay for the simultaneous detection of Borrelia specific IgG/IgM class antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most common tick-borne infectious disease in the northern hemisphere. The diagnosis of LB is usually made by clinical symptoms and subsequently supported by serology. In Europe, a two-step testing consisting of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and an immunoblot is recommended. However, due to the low sensitivity of the currently available tests, antibody detection is sometimes inaccurate, especially in the early phase of infection, leading to underdiagnoses. METHODS: To improve upon Borrelia diagnostics, we developed a multiplex Borrelia immunoassay (Borrelia multiplex), which utilizes the new INTELLIFLEX platform, enabling the simultaneous dual detection of IgG and IgM antibodies, saving further time and reducing the biosample material requirement. In order to enable correct classification, the Borrelia multiplex contains eight antigens from the five human pathogenic Borrelia species known in Europe. Six antigens are known to mainly induce an IgG response and two antigens are predominant for an IgM response. RESULTS: To validate the assay, we compared the Borrelia multiplex to a commercial bead-based immunoassay resulting in an overall assay sensitivity of 93.7% (95% CI 84.8-97.5%) and a specificity of 96.5% (95%CI 93.5-98.1%). To confirm the calculated sensitivity and specificity, a comparison with a conventional 2-step diagnostics was performed. With this comparison, we obtained a sensitivity of 95.2% (95% CI 84.2-99.2%) and a specificity of 93.0% (95% CI 90.6-94.7%). CONCLUSION: Borrelia multiplex is a highly reproducible cost- and time-effective assay that enables the profiling of antibodies against several individual antigens simultaneously.

Prevalence of molecular and serological tests of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in Carlos Chagas laboratory - Sabin group in Cuiabá.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019, which is caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, became a pandemic in 2020 with a mortality rate of 2% and high transmissibility, thus making studies with an epidemiological profile essential. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to characterize the population that performed the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 molecular and serological tests in Carlos Chagas Laboratory - Sabin Group in Cuiabá. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out with all the samples collected from nasal swab tested by RT-PCR and serological for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 IgM/IgG from the population served between April and December 2020. FINDINGS: In the analysis period, 23,631 PCR-coronavirus disease 2019 examinations were registered. Of this total number of cases, 7,649 (32.37%) tested positive, while 15,982 (66.31%) did not detect viral RNA and 374 of the results as undetermined. The peak of positive RT-PCR performed in July (n=5,878), with 35.65% (n=2,096). A total of 8,884 tests were performed on serological test SOROVID-19, with a peak of 1,169 (57.16%) of the positive tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in July. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Molecular positivity and serological tests, both peaked in July 2020, were mostly present in women aged 20-59 years, characterizing Cuiabá as the epicenter of the Midwest region in this period due to the high rate of transmissibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Review of current in vitro COVID-19 diagnostics methods.

The diagnosis of COVID-19 is considered a significant step in the management of the disease that is causing a major worldwide public health challenge from the time of its emergence in December 2019. Since it has been established that SARS-CoV-2 spreads rapidly, timely detection of the positive cases and isolation of such individuals and their contacts helps in containing viral transmission. In this paper, we review the in vitro technology platforms for testing and diagnosing COVID-19 patients: molecular tests, rapid antigen tests, and serology tests. As part of our review of each category of tests, we discuss the commercialized testing platforms, their analyzing systems, specimen collection protocols, and testing methodologies. Moreover, the efficacy and limitations of each technique are also discussed. The key structural components of the virus are presented to provide an understanding of the scientific principles behind the testing tools.

Diagnostic performance of molecular and serological tests of SARS-CoV-2 on well-characterised specimens from COVID-19 individuals: The EDCTP "PERFECT-study" protocol (RIA2020EF-3000).

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a global threat affecting 210 countries, with 2,177,469 confirmed cases and 6.67% case fatality rate as of April 16, 2020. In Africa, 17,243 cases have been confirmed, but many remain undiagnosed due to limited laboratory-capacity, suboptimal performance of used molecular-assays (~30% false negative, Yu et al. and Zhao et al., 2020) and limited WHO-recommended rapid-tests. OBJECTIVES: We aim to implement measures to minimize risks for COVID-19 in Cameroon, putting together multidisciplinary highly-experienced virologists, immunologists, bioinformaticians and clinicians, to achieve the following objectives: (a) to integrate/improve available-infrastructure, methodologies, and expertise on COVID-19. For this purpose, we will create a platform enabling researchers/clinicians to better integrate and translate evidence into the COVID-19 clinical-practice; (b) to enhance capacities in Cameroon for screening/detecting individuals with high-risks of COVID-19, by setting-up effective core-facilities on-site; (c) to validate point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays allowing same-day result delivery, thus permitting timely diagnosis, treatment, and retention in care of COVID-19 patients; (d) to implement SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis with innovative/highly sensitive ddPCR-based assays and viral genetic characterization; (e) to validate serological assays to identify COVID-19-exposed persons and follow-up of convalescents. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study conducted among COVID-19 suspects/contacts during 24 months in Cameroon. Following consecutive sampling of 1,536 individuals, oro/nasopharyngeal swabs and sera will be collected. Well characterised biorepositories will be established locally; molecular testing will be performed on conventional real-time qPCR, point-of-care GeneXpert, antigen-tests and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR); SARS-CoV2 amplicons will be sequenced; serological testing will be performed using ELISA, and antibody-based kits. Sensitivity, specificity, positive- and negative-predictive values will be evaluated. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: These efforts will contribute in creating the technical and clinical environment to facilitate earlier detection of Sars-CoV-2 in Africa in general and in Cameroon in particular. Specifically, the goals will be: (a) to implement technology transfer for capacity-building on conventional and point-of-care molecular assays, achieving a desirable performance for clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV2; (b) to integrate/improve the available infrastructure, methodologies, and expertise on Sars-CoV2 detection; (c) to improve the turn-around-time for diagnosing COVID-19 infection with obvious advantage for patients/clinical management thanks to low-cost assays, thus permitting timely treatment and retention in care; (d) to assess the epidemiology of COVID-19 and circulating-variants in Cameroon as compared to strains found in other countries.

Correlation between In Vitro Neutralization Assay and Serological Tests for Protective Antibodies Detection.

Serological assays are useful in investigating the development of humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in the context of epidemiological studies focusing on the spread of protective immunity. The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) is the gold standard method to assess the titer of protective antibodies in serum samples. However, to provide a result, the PRNT requires several days, skilled operators, and biosafety level 3 laboratories. Therefore, alternative methods are being assessed to establish a relationship between their outcomes and PRNT results. In this work, four different immunoassays (Roche Elecsys® Anti SARS-CoV-2 S, Snibe MAGLUMI® SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG, Snibe MAGLUMI® 2019-nCoV IgG, and EUROIMMUN® SARS-CoV-2 NeutraLISA assays, respectively) have been performed on individuals healed after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The correlation between each assay and the reference method has been explored through linear regression modeling, as well as through the calculation of Pearson's and Spearman's coefficients. Furthermore, the ability of serological tests to discriminate samples with high titers of neutralizing antibodies (>160) has been assessed by ROC curve analyses, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and positive predictive agreement. The EUROIMMUN® NeutraLISA assay displayed the best correlation with PRNT results (Pearson and Spearman coefficients equal to 0.660 and 0.784, respectively), as well as the ROC curve with the highest accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity (0.857, 0.889, and 0.829, respectively).

Performance of 22 Rapid Lateral Flow Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection and Influence of "Variants of Concern": Implications for Clinical Use.

Large-scale head-to-head assessment of the performance of lateral-flow tests (LFTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen is required in the context of the continuous emergence of new viral variants. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of 22 rapid LFTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens. The clinical performance of 22 LFTs was evaluated in 1,157 samples collected in the Greater Paris area. The 8 best-performing LFTs were further assessed for their ability to detect 4 variants of concern (VOC), including the alpha, beta, delta, and omicron (BA.1) variants. The specificity of SARS-CoV-2 LFTs was generally high (100% for 15 of them) but was insufficient (<75%) for 3 tests. Sensitivity of the LFTs varied from 30.0% to 79.7% compared to nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Using a cycle threshold (CT) cutoff of ≤25, sensitivity of the assays ranged from 59.7% to 100%. The 8 best-performing assays had a sensitivity of ≥80% for the detection of the 4 VOC when the CT was ≤25. Falsely negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen LFT results were observed with omicron, due to the occurrence of low viral loads (CT > 30 in 32% of samples) during the two first days following symptom onset. Several LFTs exhibited satisfactory sensitivity and specificity, whereas a few others yielded an unacceptable proportion of false-positive results and/or lacked sensitivity. The sensitivity of the best-performing assays was not influenced by VOC, including alpha, beta, delta, and omicron variants. The ability of LFTs to detect the omicron variant could be reduced during the first days following symptom onset due to lower viral loads than with other variants. IMPORTANCE The use of lateral-flow tests (LFTs) to detect SARS-CoV-2 has expanded worldwide. LFTs detect SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen and are less sensitive than nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Their performance must be evaluated independently of the manufacturers. Our study assessed the performance of 22 SARS-CoV-2 antigen LFTs in large panels of well-characterized samples. The majority of LFTs tested exhibited satisfactory sensitivity and specificity, while some assays yielded unacceptable proportions of false-positive results, and others lacked sensitivity for samples containing large amounts of virus. The sensitivity of the best-performing assays did not vary according to the VOC, including the alpha, beta, delta, and omicron variants.

Evaluation of independent self-collected blood specimens for COVID-19 antibody detection among the US veteran population.

Feasibility of home blood sample collection methods for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from VA Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants was tested to determine COVID-19 infection or vaccination status. Participants (n = 312) were randomly assigned to self-collect blood specimens using the Neoteryx Mitra Clamshell (n = 136) or Tasso-SST (n = 176) and asked to rate their experience. Mitra tip blood was eluted and Tasso tubes were centrifuged. All samples were stored at -80 °C until tested with InBios SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA, BioRad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab Assay, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assays. Participants rated both devices equally. The Abbott assay had the highest sensitivity (87% Mitra, 98% Tasso-SST) for detecting known COVID infection and/or vaccination. The InBios assay with Tasso-SST had the best sensitivity (97%) and specificity (80%) for detecting known COVID-19 infection and/or vaccination. Veterans successfully collected their own specimens with no strong preference for either device.

Simulation of group testing scenarios can boost COVID-19 screening power.

The COVID-19 has severely affected economies and health systems around the world. Mass testing could work as a powerful alternative to restrain disease dissemination, but the shortage of reagents is a limiting factor. A solution to optimize test usage relies on 'grouping' or 'pooling' strategies, which combine a set of individuals in a single reaction. To compare different group testing configurations, we developed the poolingr package, which performs an innovative hybrid in silico/in vitro approach to search for optimal testing configurations. We used 6759 viral load values, observed in 2389 positive individuals, to simulate a wide range of scenarios. We found that larger groups (>100) framed into multi-stage setups (up to six stages) could largely boost the power to detect spreaders. Although the boost was dependent on the disease prevalence, our method could point to cheaper grouping schemes to better mitigate COVID-19 dissemination through identification and quarantine recommendation for positive individuals.

Detection of silent infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by serological tests.

BACKGROUND: To control COVID-19 pandemic is of critical importance to the global public health. To capture the prevalence in an accurate and timely manner and to understand the mode of nosocomial infection are essential for its preventive measure. METHODS: We recruited 685 healthcare workers (HCW's) at Tokyo Shinagawa Hospital prior to the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccine. Sera of the subjects were tested by assays for the titer of IgG against S protein's receptor binding domain (IgG (RBD)) or IgG against nucleocapsid protein (IgG (N)) of SARS-CoV-2. Together with PCR data, the positive rates by these methods were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall positive rates among HCW's by PCR, IgG (RBD), IgG (N) with a cut-off of 1.4 S/C (IgG (N)1.4), and IgG (N) with a cut-off of 0.2 S/C (IgG (N)0.2) were 3.5%, 9.5%, 6.1%, and 27.7%, respectively. Positive rates of HCW's working in COVID-19 ward were significantly higher than those of HCW's working in non-COVID-19 ward by all the four methods. Concordances of IgG (RBD), IgG (N)1.4, and IgG (N)0.2 against PCR were 97.1%, 71.4%, and 88.6%, respectively. By subtracting the positive rates of PCR from that of IgG (RBD), the rate of overall silent infection and that of HCW's in COVID-19 ward were estimated to be 6.0% and 21.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For the prevention of nosocomial infection of SARS-CoV-2, identification of silent infection is essential. For the detection of ongoing infection, periodical screening with IgG (RBD) in addition to PCR would be an effective measure. For the surveillance of morbidity in the population, on the other hand, IgG (N)0.2 could be the most reliable indicator among the three serological tests.

The Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) for COVID-19: Depth and Breadth of Serology Assays and Plans for Assay Harmonization.

In October 2020, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) was established to study the immune response to COVID-19, and "to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies" (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/covid-19/coronavirus-research-initiatives/serological-sciences-network). SeroNet is comprised of 25 participating research institutions partnering with the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and the SeroNet Coordinating Center. Since its inception, SeroNet has supported collaborative development and sharing of COVID-19 serological assay procedures and has set forth plans for assay harmonization. To facilitate collaboration and procedure sharing, a detailed survey was sent to collate comprehensive assay details and performance metrics on COVID-19 serological assays within SeroNet. In addition, FNLCR established a protocol to calibrate SeroNet serological assays to reference standards, such as the U.S. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology standard reference material and first WHO international standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (20/136), to facilitate harmonization of assay reporting units and cross-comparison of study data. SeroNet institutions reported development of a total of 27 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods, 13 multiplex assays, and 9 neutralization assays and use of 12 different commercial serological methods. FNLCR developed a standardized protocol for SeroNet institutions to calibrate these diverse serological assays to reference standards. In conclusion, SeroNet institutions have established a diverse array of COVID-19 serological assays to study the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. Calibration of SeroNet serological assays to harmonize results reporting will facilitate future pooled data analyses and study cross-comparisons. IMPORTANCE SeroNet institutions have developed or implemented 61 diverse COVID-19 serological assays and are collaboratively working to harmonize these assays using reference materials to establish standardized reporting units. This will facilitate clinical interpretation of serology results and cross-comparison of research data.

Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a cohort of New York City metro blood donors using multiple SARS-CoV-2 serological assays: Implications for controlling the epidemic and "Reopening".

Projections of the stage of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and local, regional and national public health policies to limit coronavirus spread as well as "reopen" cities and states, are best informed by serum neutralizing antibody titers measured by reproducible, high throughput, and statically credible antibody (Ab) assays. To date, a myriad of Ab tests, both available and FDA authorized for emergency, has led to confusion rather than insight per se. The present study reports the results of a rapid, point-in-time 1,000-person cohort study using serial blood donors in the New York City metropolitan area (NYC) using multiple serological tests, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and high throughput serological assays (HTSAs). These were then tested and associated with assays for neutralizing Ab (NAb). Of the 1,000 NYC blood donor samples in late June and early July 2020, 12.1% and 10.9% were seropositive using the Ortho Total Ig and the Abbott IgG HTSA assays, respectively. These serological assays correlated with neutralization activity specific to SARS-CoV-2. The data reported herein suggest that seroconversion in this population occurred in approximately 1 in 8 blood donors from the beginning of the pandemic in NYC (considered March 1, 2020). These findings deviate with an earlier seroprevalence study in NYC showing 13.7% positivity. Collectively however, these data demonstrate that a low number of individuals have serologic evidence of infection during this "first wave" and suggest that the notion of "herd immunity" at rates of ~60% or higher are not near. Furthermore, the data presented herein show that the nature of the Ab-based immunity is not invariably associated with the development of NAb. While the blood donor population may not mimic precisely the NYC population as a whole, rapid assessment of seroprevalence in this cohort and serial reassessment could aid public health decision making.

SARS-CoV-2 Associated Immune Dysregulation and COVID-Associated Pulmonary Aspergilliosis (CAPA): A Cautionary Tale.

As the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to plague healthcare systems, it has become clear that opportunistic pathogens cause a considerable proportion of SARS-CoV-2-associated mortality and morbidity cases. Of these, Covid-Associated Pulmonary Aspergilliosis (CAPA) is a major concern with evidence that it occurs in the absence of traditional risk factors such as neutropenia and is diagnostically challenging for the attending physician. In this review, we focus on the immunopathology of SARS-CoV-2 and how this potentiates CAPA through dysregulation of local and systemic immunity as well as the unintended consequences of approved COVID treatments including corticosteroids and IL-6 inhibitors. Finally, we will consider how knowledge of the above may aid in the diagnosis of CAPA using current diagnostics and what treatment should be instituted in probable and confirmed cases.

Diagnostic Performance of Seven Commercial COVID-19 Serology Tests Available in South America.

BACKGROUND: Although RT-qPCR remains the gold-standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology-based assays have been widely used during 2020 as an alternative for individual and mass testing, and are currently used for seroprevalence studies. OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical performance of seven commercial serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis available in South America. METHODS: We conducted a blind evaluation of five lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIA) and two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant differences among ELISA kits and LFIAs for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG sensitivity (values ranging from 76.4% to 83.5%) and specificity (100% for the seven serological assays). For anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM, the five LFIAs have a significantly higher sensitivity for samples collected 15 days after the first time RT-qPCR positive test, with values ranging from 47.1% to 88.2%; moreover, the specificity varied from 85% to 100%, but the only LFIA brand with a 100% specificity had the lowest sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of the seven serological tests was acceptable for the seven brands tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection for seroprevalence screening purposes. On the other hand, our results show the lack of accuracy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM detection in LFIAs as a tool for SARS-CoV-2 acute-phase infection diagnosis.