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.

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.

In a search of a protective titer: Do we or do we not need to know?

The level of postvaccine protection depends on two factors: antibodies and T-cell responses. While the first one is relatively easily measured, the measuring of the second one is a difficult problem. The recent studies indicate that the first one may be a good proxy for the protection, at least for SARS-CoV-2. The massive data currently gathered by both researcher and citizen scientists may be pivotal in confirming this observation, and the collective body of evidence is growing daily. This leads to an acceptance of IgG antibody levels as an accessible biomarker of individual's protection. With enormous and immediate need for assessing patient condition at the point of care, quantitative antibody analysis remains the most effective and efficient way to assess the protection against the disease. Let us not discount importance of reference points in the turmoil of current pandemics.

COVIDIAGNOSTIX: health technology assessment of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVE: In vitro diagnostic tests for SARS-COV-2, also known as serological tests, have rapidly spread. However, to date, mostly single-center technical and diagnostic performance's assessments have been carried out without an intralaboratory validation process and a health technology assessment (HTA) systematic approach. Therefore, the rapid HTA for evaluating antibody tests for SARS-COV-2 was applied. METHODS: The use of rapid HTA is an opportunity to test innovative technology. Unlike traditional HTA (which evaluates the benefits of new technologies after being tested in clinical trials or have been applied in practice for some time), the rapid HTA is performed during the early stages of developing new technology. A multidisciplinary team conducted the rapid HTA following the HTA Core Model® (version 3.0) developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: The three methodological and analytical steps used in the HTA applied to the evaluation of antibody tests for SARS-COV-2 are reported: the selection of the tests to be evaluated; the research and collection of information to support the adoption and appropriateness of the technology; and the preparation of the final reports and their dissemination. Finally, the rapid HTA of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 is summarized in a report that allows its dissemination and communication. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid-HTA evaluation method, in addition to highlighting the characteristics that differentiate the tests from each other, guarantees a timely and appropriate evaluation, becoming a tool to create a direct link between science and health management.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody persistence in COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors: Dependency on assay format and applicability to serosurveillance.

BACKGROUND: Antibody response duration following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection tends to be variable and depends on severity of disease and method of detection. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: COVID-19 convalescent plasma from 18 donors was collected longitudinally for a maximum of 63-129 days following resolution of symptoms. All the samples were initially screened by the Ortho total Ig test to confirm positivity and subsequently tested with seven additional direct sandwich or indirect binding assays (Ortho, Roche, Abbott, Broad Institute) directed against a variety of antigen targets (S1, receptor binding domain, and nucleocapsid [NC]), along with two neutralization assays (Broad Institute live virus PRNT and Vitalant Research Institute [VRI] Pseudovirus reporter viral particle neutralization [RVPN]). RESULTS: The direct detection assays (Ortho total Ig total and Roche total Ig) showed increasing levels of antibodies over the time period, in contrast to the indirect IgG assays that showed a decline. Neutralization assays also demonstrated declining responses; the VRI RVPN pseudovirus had a greater rate of decline than the Broad PRNT live virus assay. DISCUSSION: These data show that in addition to variable individual responses and associations with disease severity, the detection assay chosen contributes to the heterogeneous results in antibody stability over time. Depending on the scope of the research, one assay may be preferable over another. For serosurveillance studies, direct, double Ag-sandwich assays appear to be the best choice due to their stability; in particular, algorithms that include both S1- and NC-based assays can help reduce the rate of false-positivity and discriminate between natural infection and vaccine-derived seroreactivity.

Evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in Canadian public health laboratories.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the influx of immunoassays for the detection of antibodies towards severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into the global market. The Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network Serology Task Force undertook a nationwide evaluation of twelve laboratory and 6 point-of-care based commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We determined that there was considerable variability in the performance of individual tests and that an orthogonal testing algorithm should be prioritized to maximize the accuracy and comparability of results across the country. The manual enzyme immunoassays and point-of-care tests evaluated had lower specificity and increased coefficients of variation compared to automated enzyme immunoassays platforms putting into question their utility for large-scale sero-surveillance. Overall, the data presented here provide a comprehensive approach for applying accurate serological assays for longitudinal sero-surveillance and vaccine trials while informing Canadian public health policy.

Production of high-quality SARS-CoV-2 antigens: Impact of bioprocess and storage on glycosylation, biophysical attributes, and ELISA serologic tests performance.

Serological assays are valuable tools to study SARS-CoV-2 spread and, importantly, to identify individuals that were already infected and would be potentially immune to a virus reinfection. SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and its receptor binding domain (RBD) are the antigens with higher potential to develop SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. Moreover, structural studies of these antigens are key to understand the molecular basis for Spike interaction with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor, hopefully enabling the development of COVID-19 therapeutics. Thus, it is urgent that significant amounts of this protein became available at the highest quality. In this study, we produced Spike and RBD in two human derived cell hosts: HEK293-E6 and Expi293F™. We evaluated the impact of different and scalable bioprocessing approaches on Spike and RBD production yields and, more importantly, on these antigens' quality attributes. Using negative and positive sera collected from human donors, we show an excellent performance of the produced antigens, assessed in serologic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests, as denoted by the high specificity and sensitivity of the test. We show robust Spike productions with final yields of approx. 2 mg/L of culture that were maintained independently of the production scale or cell culture strategy. To the best of our knowledge, the final yield of 90 mg/L of culture obtained for RBD production, was the highest reported to date. An in-depth characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Spike and RBD proteins was performed, namely the antigen's oligomeric state, glycosylation profiles, and thermal stability during storage. The correlation of these quality attributes with ELISA performance show equivalent reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 positive serum, for all Spike and RBD produced, and for all storage conditions tested. Overall, we provide straightforward protocols to produce high-quality SARS-CoV-2 Spike and RBD antigens, that can be easily adapted to both academic and industrial settings; and integrate, for the first time, studies on the impact of bioprocess with an in-depth characterization of these proteins, correlating antigen's glycosylation and biophysical attributes to performance of COVID-19 serologic tests.

How can we interpret SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results?

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the world has raced to understand and accurately diagnose infection caused by SARS-CoV-2. Today, hundreds of commercial antibody tests are on the market despite often lacking proper validation and with unsatisfactory sensitivity and/or specificity. In addition, many questions related to the humoral response remain unresolved, although research is carried out at an unprecedented speed. Despite the shortcomings, serological assays have an important part to play in combating the pandemic by aiding in diagnosis and sero-epidemiological studies. However, careful attention must be paid to the application of serology and the interpretation of serological data-especially in low prevalence regions, both at an individual and at a population level. In this article, we argue that serological results are often misinterpreted, and in the eagerness to be first, methodological rigor is often taking a backseat.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

A lateral flow immunoassay test performance in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys: a validation study among healthcare workers.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of NG-Test® when used as a finger-prick test on healthcare workers and to compare it to the ELISA Wantai Immunoassay. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positive and 59 who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 negative accepted to participate in this study. They were subjected to an NG-Test® finger-prick test and collection of a blood sample on the same day. A second NG-Test® on another finger was performed for the first 30 cases and controls and read blinded to the first. Sera obtained from blood samples were used to perform the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 ELISA. The interobserver agreement for the NG-Test® test was perfect (kappa coefficient = 100% [98%-100%]). The sensitivity of NG-Test® was estimated to be 85% [71.9%-92.3%] and the specificity 98.3% [95.0%-100.0%]) for both IgG and IgM. The percentage of agreement between the Wantai immunoassay and NG-Test® was 92.73% for IgG (Kappa = 0.85 [0.75-0.95]) and 65.45% (Kappa = 0.42 [0.26-0.58]) for IgM. Our study highlights the need to validate rapid immunoassay tests under real-life conditions. If NG-Test® is used in seroprevalence surveys, we recommend that its diagnostic performance be taken into consideration to obtain a reliable estimation.

Serological antibody testing in the COVID-19 pandemic: their molecular basis and applications.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has placed an overwhelming burden on the healthcare system, and caused major disruption to the world economy. COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus that leads to a variety of symptoms in humans, including cough, fever and respiratory failure. SARS-CoV-2 infection can trigger extensive immune responses, including the production of antibodies. The detection of antibody response by serological testing provides a supplementary diagnostic tool to molecular tests. We hereby present a succinct yet comprehensive review on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as molecular mechanisms behind the strengths and limitations of serological antibody tests. The presence of antibodies can be detected in patient sera within days post symptom onset. Serological tests demonstrate superior sensitivity to molecular tests in some periods of time during disease development. Compared with the molecular tests, serological tests can be used for point-of-care testing, providing faster results at a lower cost. Commercially available serological tests show variable sensitivity and specificity, and the molecular basis of these variabilities are analysed. We discuss assays of different complexities that are used to specifically quantitate neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, which has important implications for vaccine development and herd immunity. Furthermore, we discuss examples of successful applications of serological tests to contact tracing and community-level sero-surveying, which provide invaluable information for pandemic management and assessment.

The utilization of rapid serological tests in COVID-19 diagnostics - a high risk of false-negative results in outpatient care, with particular emphasis on dental treatment.

In order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, in the early stages of the pandemic outbreak, postponing elective procedures was recommended all around the world. Outpatient care and dental care were limited to telephone advice and emergency services. Dental staff is particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 contraction, because of the inevitable contact with patients' body fluids during aerosol-generating procedures. The implementation of diagnostic tests among ambulatory patients could improve the occupational safety among outpatient care personnel. The aim of this review was to introduce information regarding COVID-19 diagnostics with a particular focus on the methods which can be utilized in an outpatient and dental care setting. An online PubMed database review of articles on COVID-19 diagnostics, published on February 12-May 15, 2020, was conducted. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard in COVID-19 diagnostics, which determines if a person has an active infection. Unfortunately, its utilization in outpatient care is limited. Serological enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays identify people who were infected, including those who have had an asymptomatic infection, but they do not give sufficient information about the acute infection. Rapid serological assays developed to facilitate testing outside of laboratories, especially in dental offices, are not recommended by the World Health Organization to be used outside research settings, and they should not constitute the basis for clinical decision-making because of frequent false-negative results which may consequently contribute to personnel infections. Out of all available COVID-19 diagnostic methods, rapid serological assays seemed to be a method of choice in outpatient medical care. Unfortunately, their results turned out to be unreliable. The best methods to ensure the occupational safety of medical staff and to avoid cross-infections in outpatient care facilities include a thorough epidemiological interview, temperature measurement to rule out patients with an active infection, and the implementation of strict infection control procedures. Med Pr. 2021;72(2):155-62.

Rapid Determination of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using a bedside, point-of-Care, serological test.

Background: Several serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed or use, but most have only been validated on few samples, and none provide medical practitioners with an easy-to-use, self-contained, bedside test with high accuracy. Material and methods: Two-hundred fifty-six sera from 101 patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive RT-PCR) and 50 control sera were tested for IgM/IgG using the NG-Test IgM-IgG COVID all-in-one assay. The seroconversion dynamic was assessed by symptom onset and day of RT-PCR diagnosis. Results: Among the SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, positive IgG and/or IgM result was observed for 67.3% of patients (68/101), including 17 (16.8%) already positive at the day of RT-PCR, and 51 (50.5%) with observable seroconversion, and 32.7% (33/101) remained negative as subsequent sampling was not possible (patient discharge or death). The sensitivity increased with the delay between onset of symptoms and sampling, going from 29.1%, 78.2% and 86.5% for the time periods of 0-9-, 10-14- and >14-days after the onset of symptoms, respectively. Cumulative sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value were 97.0%, 100%, 100% and 96.2%, respectively 15-days after the onset of symptoms. No difference in seroconversion delay was observed regardless of whether patients received ventilation. Conclusions: The NG-test is a bedside serological assay that could serve as a complementary source of diagnostic information to RT-PCR and chest imaging. It may also be useful to monitor immunological status of medical and non-medical workers during the ongoing pandemic, and the general population after social distancing measures have eased.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals.

Serology detection is recognized for its sensitivity in convalescent patients with COVID-19, in comparison with nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). This article aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serologic methods for COVID-19 based on assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Ovid, EBSCO for case-control, longitudinal and cohort studies that determined the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests in comparison with NAATs in COVID-19 cases and used QUADAS-2 for quality assessment. Pooled accuracy was analysed using INLA method. A total of 27 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with 4 cohort, 16 case-control and 7 longitudinal studies and 4565 participants. Serology tests had the lowest sensitivity at 0-7 days after symptom onset and the highest at >14 days. TAB had a better sensitivity than IgG or IgM only. Using combined nucleocapsid (N) and spike(S) protein had a better sensitivity compared to N or S protein only. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) had a lower sensitivity than enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). Serology tests will play an important role in the clinical diagnosis for later stage COVID-19 patients. ELISA tests, detecting TAB or targeting combined N and S proteins had a higher diagnostic sensitivity compared to other methods.

A comparative evaluation between the Abbott Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test device and Abbott Architect™ SARS CoV-2 IgG assay.

INTRODUCTION: Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 serve as critical diagnostic markers for determining how broadly the COVID-19 pandemic has spread, confirming patient recovery, monitoring potential long-term effects of infection, and evaluating potential protection from reinfection. As new antibody tests become available, it is important to evaluate their performance and utility. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the Abbott PanbioTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device against the Abbott ArchitectTM SARS CoV-2 IgG Assay for the detection of the COVID-19 IgG antibody. METHODS: Two panels of specimens were utilized to challenge both antibody tests: (1) a set of 150 prepandemic negative specimens collected in 2014, and (2) a set of 122 specimens from 87 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the US and UK that were confirmed with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA test result. RESULTS: The ArchitectTM test had a specificity of 100 % and sensitivity of 99.1 % and 93.9 % when excluding or including immunocompromised patients, respectively for specimens collected >14 days post symptom onset or >5 days post-RNA testing. The PanbioTM test had 99.3 % agreement to ArchitectTM. Notably, N = 6 immune-compromised individuals were identified that did not develop detectable antibodies by day 30. CONCLUSION: There is good concordance between the ArchitectTM SARS CoV-2 IgG Assay and PanbioTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device for the detection of SARS CoV-2 IgG.

Heat Inactivation of Different Types of SARS-CoV-2 Samples: What Protocols for Biosafety, Molecular Detection and Serological Diagnostics?

Standard precautions to minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission implies that infected cell cultures and clinical specimens may undergo some sort of inactivation to reduce or abolish infectivity. We evaluated three heat inactivation protocols (56 °C-30 min, 60 °C-60 min and 92 °C-15 min) on SARS-CoV-2 using (i) infected cell culture supernatant, (ii) virus-spiked human sera (iii) and nasopharyngeal samples according to the recommendations of the European norm NF EN 14476-A2. Regardless of the protocol and the type of samples, a 4 Log10 TCID50 reduction was observed. However, samples containing viral loads > 6 Log10 TCID50 were still infectious after 56 °C-30 min and 60 °C-60 min, although infectivity was < 10 TCID50. The protocols 56 °C-30 min and 60 °C-60 min had little influence on the RNA copies detection, whereas 92 °C-15 min drastically reduced the limit of detection, which suggests that this protocol should be avoided for inactivation ahead of molecular diagnostics. Lastly, 56 °C-30 min treatment of serum specimens had a negligible influence on the results of IgG detection using a commercial ELISA test, whereas a drastic decrease in neutralizing titers was observed.

Improved Detection of Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by Microsphere-Based Antibody Assay.

Currently available COVID-19 antibody tests using enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunochromatographic assay have variable sensitivity and specificity. Here, we developed and evaluated a novel microsphere-based antibody assay (MBA) for detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleoprotein (NP) and spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD). The seropositive cutoff value was set using a cohort of 294 anonymous serum specimens collected in 2018. The specificity was assessed using serum specimens collected from organ donors or influenza patients before 2020. Seropositive rate was determined among COVID-19 patients. Time-to-seropositivity and signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) ratio were compared between MBA and EIA. MBA had a specificity of 100% (93/93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 96-100%) for anti-NP IgG, 98.9% (92/93; 95% CI 94.2-100%) for anti-RBD IgG. The MBA seropositive rate for convalescent COVID-19 patients was 89.8% (35/39) for anti-NP IgG and 79.5% (31/39) for anti-RBD IgG. The time-to-seropositivity was shorter with MBA than EIA. MBA could better differentiate between COVID-19 patients and negative controls with higher S/CO ratio for COVID-19 patients, lower S/CO ratio with negative controls and fewer specimens in the equivocal range. MBA is robust, simple and is suitable for clinical microbiology laboratory for the accurate determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for diagnosis, serosurveillance, and vaccine trials.

Evaluation of Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Implications for Serology Testing in a Low-Prevalence Setting.

BACKGROUND: Robust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little premarket validation. METHODS: Performance characteristics for 5 PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). RESULTS: Sensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.1%-60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI, 89.2%-98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 96.1%-100.0%). ELISA sensitivity for IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI, 85.0%-98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI, 53.2%-68.4%), rising to 91.2% (95% CI, 81.8%-96.7%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset, with specificity 94.4% (95% CI, 89.2%-97.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.