Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 186
Filter
1.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 859, 2022 Nov 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2139175

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Borrelia , Lyme Disease , Humans , Antibodies, Bacterial , Serologic Tests/methods , Immunoglobulin G , Lyme Disease/diagnosis , Immunoglobulin M
2.
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) ; 68(3): 344-350, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2114224

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Immunoglobulin M , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Serologic Tests/methods
3.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 16(9): 1376-1384, 2022 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2066666

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods
4.
PLoS One ; 17(9): e0273818, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2039402

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Cameroon/epidemiology , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , RNA, Viral , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods
5.
Anal Biochem ; 658: 114902, 2022 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2031059

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Antibodies, Viral , Serologic Tests/methods , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Vaccination , Antibodies, Neutralizing
6.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(17)2022 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1997650

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods
7.
Microbiol Spectr ; 10(4): e0115722, 2022 08 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1950017

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nucleic Acids , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Serologic Tests/methods
8.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 104(2): 115770, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1936297

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Veterans , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods
9.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 11854, 2022 07 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1931481

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods
10.
PLoS One ; 17(5): e0267566, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910605

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Japan , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
11.
mSphere ; 7(4): e0019322, 2022 08 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1891742

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Serologic Tests/methods
12.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0250319, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1833525

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Blood Donors , COVID-19/immunology , Cohort Studies , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Male , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroconversion/physiology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Serologic Tests/methods , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
13.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(6)2022 Mar 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753505

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , Disease Susceptibility/immunology , Host-Pathogen Interactions/immunology , Pulmonary Aspergillosis/etiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antifungal Agents/therapeutic use , Biomarkers , COVID-19/virology , Disease Management , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Pulmonary Aspergillosis/diagnosis , Pulmonary Aspergillosis/therapy , Reproducibility of Results , Serologic Tests/methods , Serologic Tests/standards , Treatment Outcome
14.
Front Cell Infect Microbiol ; 12: 787987, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731761

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Humans , Immunoglobulin M , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Serologic Tests/methods , South America
15.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(3): 672-683, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700734

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods
16.
Virology ; 569: 37-43, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1692814

ABSTRACT

Risk factors for disease progression and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections require an understanding of acute and long-term virological and immunological dynamics. Fifty-one RT-PCR positive COVID-19 outpatients were recruited between May and December 2020 in Munich, Germany, and followed up at multiple defined timepoints for up to one year. RT-PCR and viral culture were performed and seroresponses measured. Participants were classified applying the WHO clinical progression scale. Short symptom to test time (median 5.0 days; p = 0.0016) and high viral loads (VL; median maximum VL: 3∙108 copies/mL; p = 0.0015) were indicative for viral culture positivity. Participants with WHO grade 3 at baseline had significantly higher VLs compared to those with WHO 1 and 2 (p = 0.01). VLs dropped fast within 1 week of symptom onset. Maximum VLs were positively correlated with the magnitude of Ro-N-Ig seroresponse (p = 0.022). Our results describe the dynamics of VLs and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in mild to moderate cases that can support public health measures during the ongoing global pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Viral Load , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Child , Cohort Studies , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Pandemics , Serologic Tests/methods , Symptom Assessment , Young Adult
17.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0261853, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622346

ABSTRACT

Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is used worldwide to test and trace the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). "Extraction-less" or "direct" real time-reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a transparent and accessible qualitative method for SARS-CoV-2 detection from nasopharyngeal or oral pharyngeal samples with the potential to generate actionable data more quickly, at a lower cost, and with fewer experimental resources than full RT-qPCR. This study engaged 10 global testing sites, including laboratories currently experiencing testing limitations due to reagent or equipment shortages, in an international interlaboratory ring trial. Participating laboratories were provided a common protocol, common reagents, aliquots of identical pooled clinical samples, and purified nucleic acids and used their existing in-house equipment. We observed 100% concordance across laboratories in the correct identification of all positive and negative samples, with highly similar cycle threshold values. The test also performed well when applied to locally collected patient nasopharyngeal samples, provided the viral transport media did not contain charcoal or guanidine, both of which appeared to potently inhibit the RT-PCR reaction. Our results suggest that direct RT-PCR assay methods can be clearly translated across sites utilizing readily available equipment and expertise and are thus a feasible option for more efficient COVID-19 coronavirus disease testing as demanded by the continuing pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Reverse Transcription/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/virology , Feasibility Studies , Humans , Nasopharynx/virology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods , Specimen Handling/methods
18.
J Med Virol ; 94(5): 1976-1982, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1589016

ABSTRACT

To investigate endogenous interference factors of the detection results of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgM/IgG. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG in sera of 200 patients without COVID-19 infection, including rheumatoid factor (RF) positive group, antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive group, pregnant women group, and normal senior group, with 50 in each group and 100 normal controls. The level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in pregnant women was significantly higher than that in the normal control group (p = 0.000), but there was no significant difference between other groups. The levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgM in the pregnant women group, normal senior group, ANA positive group, and RF positive group were significantly higher than that in the normal control group (p < 0.05), with significant higher false-positive rates in these groups (p = 0.036, p = 0.004, p = 0.000, vs. normal control group). Serum RF caused SARS-CoV-2 IgM false-positive in a concentration-dependent manner, especially when its concentration was higher than 110.25 IU/L, and the urea dissociation test can turn the false positive to negative. ANA, normal seniors, pregnant women, and RF can lead to false-positive reactivity of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and/or IgG detected using ELISA. These factors should be considered when SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG detection is positive, false positive samples caused by RF positive can be used for urea dissociation test.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Immunoglobulin M , Pregnancy , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods
19.
J Virol Methods ; 301: 114437, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587096

ABSTRACT

COVID-19, a new respiratory infectious disease, was first reported at the end of 2019, in Wuhan, China. Now, COVID-19 is still causing major loss of human life and economic productivity in almost all countries around the world. Early detection, early isolation, and early diagnosis of COVID-19 patients and asymptomatic carriers are essential to blocking the spread of the pandemic. This paper briefly reviewed COVID-19 diagnostic assays for clinical application, including nucleic acid tests, immunological methods, and Computed Tomography (CT) imaging. Nucleic acid tests (NAT) target the virus genome and indicates the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Currently, real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) is the most widely used NAT and, basically, is the most used diagnostic assay for COVID-19. Besides qPCR, many novel rapid and sensitive NAT assays were also developed. Serological testing (detection of serum antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2), which belongs to the immunological methods, is also used in the diagnosis of COVID-19. The positive results of serological testing indicate the presence of antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 resulting from being infected with the virus. Viral antigen detection assays are also important immunological methods used mainly for rapid virus detection. However, only a few of these assays had been reported. CT imaging is still an important auxiliary diagnosis tool for COVID-19 patients, especially for symptomatic patients in the early stage, whose viral load is low and different to be identified by NAT. These diagnostic techniques are all good in some way and applying a combination of them will greatly improve the accuracy of COVID-19 diagnostics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods
20.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0259097, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575776

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) poses a high risk of transmission in close-contact indoor settings, which may include households. Prior studies have found a wide range of household secondary attack rates and may contain biases due to simplifying assumptions about transmission variability and test accuracy. METHODS: We compiled serological SARS-CoV-2 antibody test data and prior SARS-CoV-2 test reporting from members of 9,224 Utah households. We paired these data with a probabilistic model of household importation and transmission. We calculated a maximum likelihood estimate of the importation probability, mean and variability of household transmission probability, and sensitivity and specificity of test data. Given our household transmission estimates, we estimated the threshold of non-household transmission required for epidemic growth in the population. RESULTS: We estimated that individuals in our study households had a 0.41% (95% CI 0.32%- 0.51%) chance of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection outside their household. Our household secondary attack rate estimate was 36% (27%- 48%), substantially higher than the crude estimate of 16% unadjusted for imperfect serological test specificity and other factors. We found evidence for high variability in individual transmissibility, with higher probability of no transmissions or many transmissions compared to standard models. With household transmission at our estimates, the average number of non-household transmissions per case must be kept below 0.41 (0.33-0.52) to avoid continued growth of the pandemic in Utah. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that crude estimates of household secondary attack rate based on serology data without accounting for false positive tests may underestimate the true average transmissibility, even when test specificity is high. Our finding of potential high variability (overdispersion) in transmissibility of infected individuals is consistent with characterizing SARS-CoV-2 transmission being largely driven by superspreading from a minority of infected individuals. Mitigation efforts targeting large households and other locations where many people congregate indoors might curb continued spread of the virus.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Family Characteristics , Humans , Incidence , Likelihood Functions , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sensitivity and Specificity , Serologic Tests/methods , Utah/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL