Assessing Vulnerability to COVID-19 in High-Risk Populations: The Role of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Targeted Serology.

Individuals at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, due to compromised immunity or other risk factors, would benefit from objective measures of vulnerability to infection based on vaccination or prior infection. The authors reviewed published data to identify a specific role and interpretation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike-targeted serology testing. Specific recommendations are provided for an evidence-based and clinically-useful interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 spike-targeted serology to identify vulnerability to infection and potential subsequent adverse outcomes. Decreased vaccine effectiveness among immunocompromised individuals is linked to correspondingly high rates of breakthrough infections. Negative results on SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are associated with increased risk for subsequent infection. "Low-positive" results on semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike-targeted antibody tests may help identify persons at increased risk as well. Standardized SARS-CoV-2 spike-targeted antibody tests may provide objective information on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated adverse outcomes. This holds especially for high-risk populations that demonstrate a relatively high rate of seronegativity. The widespread availability of such tests presents an opportunity to refine risk assessment for individuals with suboptimal SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and to promote effective interventions. Interim federal guidance would support physicians and patients while additional investigations are pursued.

Evolution of Specimen Self-Collection in the COVID-19 Era: Implications for Population Health Management of Infectious Disease.

Laboratory testing is an important component in the diagnosis of respiratory tract infections such as with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, specimen collection not only risks exposure of health care workers and other patients to infection, but also necessitates use of personal protective equipment that may be in short supply during periods of heightened disease activity. Self-collection of nasal or oropharyngeal swabs offers an alternative to address these drawbacks. Although studies in the past decade have demonstrated the utility of this approach for respiratory infections, it has not been widely adopted in routine clinical practice. The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, has focused attention on the need for safe, convenient, timely, and scalable methods for collecting upper respiratory specimens for testing. The goals of this article are to highlight the literature regarding self-collected nasal or oropharyngeal specimens for respiratory pathogen testing; discuss the role of self-collection in helping prevent the spread of the COVID-19 disease from infected patients and facilitating a shift toward "virtual" medicine or telemedicine; and describe the current and future state of self-collection for infectious agents, and the impacts these approaches can have on population health management and disease diagnosis and prevention.

Performance of Unobserved Self-Collected Nasal Swabs for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR Utilizing a Remote Specimen Collection Strategy.

BACKGROUND: The use of a remote specimen collection strategy employing a kit designed for unobserved self-collection for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) can decrease the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and exposure risk. To assess the impact of unobserved specimen self-collection on test performance, we examined results from a SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR test for self-collected specimens from participants in a return-to-work screening program and assessed the impact of a pooled testing strategy in this cohort. METHODS: Self-collected anterior nasal swabs from employee return-to-work programs were tested using the Quest Diagnostics Emergency Use Authorization SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. The cycle threshold (Ct) values for the N1 and N3 N-gene targets and a human RNase P (RP) gene control target were tabulated. For comparison, we utilized Ct values from a cohort of health care provider-collected specimens from patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms. RESULTS: Among 47 923 participants, 1.8% were positive. RP failed to amplify for 13/115 435 (0.011%) specimens. The median (interquartile range) Cts were 32.7 (25.0-35.7) for N1 and 31.3 (23.8-34.2) for N3. Median Ct values in the self-collected cohort were significantly higher than those of symptomatic but not asymptomatic patients. Based on Ct values, pooled testing with 4 specimens would have yielded inconclusive results in 67/1268 (5.2%) specimens but only a single false-negative result. CONCLUSIONS: Unobserved self-collection of nasal swabs provides adequate sampling for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. These findings alleviate concerns of increased false negatives in this context. Specimen pooling could be used for this population, as the likelihood of false-negative results is very low when using a sensitive, dual-target methodology.

Pooling of Upper Respiratory Specimens Using a SARS-CoV-2 Real-time RT-PCR Assay Authorized for Emergency Use in Low-Prevalence Populations for High-Throughput Testing.

BACKGROUND: Nucleic acid amplification testing is a critical tool for addressing the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Specimen pooling can increase throughput and conserve testing resources but requires validation to ensure that reduced sensitivity does not increase the false-negative rate. We evaluated the performance of a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use for pooled testing of upper respiratory specimens. METHODS: Positive specimens were selected from 3 prevalence groups, 1%-3%, >3%-6%, and >6%-10%. Positive percent agreement (PPA) was assessed by pooling single-positive specimens with 3 negative specimens; performance was assessed using Passing-Bablok regression. Additionally, we assessed the distributions of RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for 3091 positive specimens. RESULTS: PPA was 100% for the 101 pooled specimens. There was a linear relationship between Ct values for pooled and single-tested specimens (r = 0.96-0.99; slope ≈ 1). The mean pooled Ct shifts at 40 cycles were 2.38 and 1.90, respectively, for the N1 and N3 targets. The median Cts for 3091 positive specimens were 25.9 (N1) and 24.7 (N3). The percentage of positive specimens with Cts between 40 and the shifted Ct was 1.42% (N1) and 0.0% (N3). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled and individual testing of specimens positive for SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated 100% agreement, which demonstrates the viability of pooled specimens for SARS-COV-2 testing using a dual-target RT-PCR system. Pooled specimen testing can help increase testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 with a low risk of false-negative results.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Targeting Nucleocapsid or Spike Protein by Four High-Throughput Immunoassays Authorized for Emergency Use.

A total of 1,200 serum samples that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody using the Abbott Architect immunoassay targeting the nucleocapsid protein were run in 3 SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays targeting spike proteins (DiaSorin Liaison, Ortho Vitros, and Euroimmun). Consensus-positive and consensus-negative interpretations were defined as qualitative agreement in at least 3 of the 4 assays. Agreement of the 4 individual assays with a consensus-negative interpretation (n = 610) ranged from 96.7% to 100%, and agreement with a consensus-positive interpretation (n = 584) ranged from 94.3% to 100%. Laboratory-developed inhibition assays were utilized to evaluate 49 consensus-negative samples that were positive in only one assay; true-positive reactivity was confirmed in only 2 of these 49 (4%) samples. These findings demonstrate very high levels of agreement among 4 SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays authorized for emergency use, regardless of antigen target or assay format. Although false-positive reactivity was identified, its occurrence was rare (no more than 1.7% of samples for a given assay).