COVID-19 Disease Severity in Persons Infected With Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 Sublineages and Association With Vaccination Status.

This retrospective study compares the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons infected with BA.1 and BA.2 sublineages by vaccination status.

COVID-19 disease severity in persons infected with the Omicron variant compared with the Delta variant in Qatar.

Background: Understanding the disease severity associated with the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is important in determining appropriate management strategies at the individual and population levels. We determined the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in persons infected with the Omicron vs the Delta variant. Methods: We identified individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection with Delta and propensity-score matched controls with Omicron variant infection from the National COVID-19 Database in Qatar. We excluded temporary visitors to Qatar, those with a prior documented infection, those ≤18 years old, and those with <14 days of follow up after the index test positive date. We determined the rates of admission to the hospital, admission to intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or death among those infected with the Delta or Omicron variants. Results: Among 9763 cases infected with the Delta variant and 11 310 cases infected with the Omicron variant, we identified 3926 propensity-score matched pairs. Among 3926 Delta infected, 3259 (83.0%) had mild, 633 (16.1%) had moderate and 34 (0.9%) had severe/critical disease. Among 3926 Omicron infected, 3866 (98.5%) had mild, 59 (1.5%) had moderate, and only 1 had severe/critical disease (overall P < 0.001). Factors associated with less moderate or severe/critical disease included infection with Omicron variant (aOR = 0.06; confidence interval (CI) = 0.05-0.09) and vaccination including a booster (aOR = 0.30; 95% CI = 0.09-0.99). Conclusions: Omicron variant infection is associated with significantly lower severity of disease compared with the Delta variant. Vaccination continues to offer strong protection against severe/critical disease.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Disease Severity in Children Infected With the Omicron Variant.

SHORT SUMMARY: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from the Omicron variant in children/adolescents is less severe than infection from the Delta variant. Those 6 to <18 years also have less severe disease than those <6 years old. BACKGROUND: There are limited data assessing coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease severity in children/adolescents infected with the Omicron variant. METHODS: We identified children and adolescents <18 years of age with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with Delta and propensity score-matched controls with Omicron variant infection from the National COVID-19 Database in Qatar. Primary outcome was disease severity, determined by hospital admission, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), or mechanical ventilation within 14 days of diagnosis, or death within 28 days. RESULTS: Among 1735 cases with Delta variant infection between 1 June and 6 November 2021, and 32 635 cases with Omicron variant infection between 1 January and 15 January 2022, who did not have prior infection and were not vaccinated, we identified 985 propensity score-matched pairs. Among those who were Delta infected, 84.2% had mild, 15.7% had moderate, and 0.1% had severe/critical disease. Among those who were Omicron infected, 97.8% had mild, 2.2% had moderate, and none had severe/critical disease (P < .001). Omicron variant infection (vs Delta) was associated with significantly lower odds of moderate or severe/critical disease (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], .07-.18). Those aged 6-11 and 12 to <18 years had lower odds of developing moderate or severe/critical disease compared with those younger than age 6 years (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, .33-.66 for 6-11 year olds; aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, .21-.94 for 12 to <18 year olds). CONCLUSIONS: Omicron variant infection in children/adolescents is associated with less severe disease than Delta variant infection as measured by hospitalization rates and need for ICU care or mechanical ventilation. Those 6 to <18 years of age also have less severe disease than those <6 years old.

Assessing the performance of a serological point-of-care test in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

This study investigated the performance of a rapid point-of-care antibody test, the BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test, in comparison with a high-quality, validated, laboratory-based platform, the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay. Serological testing was conducted on 709 individuals. Concordance metrics were estimated. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with seropositivity. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was 63.5% (450/709; 95% CI 59.8%-67.0%) using the BioMedomics assay and 71.9% (510/709; 95% CI 68.5%-75.2%) using the Elecsys assay. There were 60 discordant results between the two assays, all of which were seropositive in the Elecsys assay, but seronegative in the BioMedomics assay. Overall, positive, and negative percent agreements between the two assays were 91.5% (95% CI 89.2%-93.5%), 88.2% (95% CI 85.1%-90.9%), and 100% (95% CI 98.2%-100%), respectively, with a Cohen's kappa of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84). Excluding specimens with lower (Elecsys) antibody titers, the agreement improved with overall, positive, and negative percent concordance of 94.4% (95% CI 92.3%-96.1%), 91.8% (95% CI 88.8%-94.3%), and 100% (95% CI 98.2%-100%), respectively, and a Cohen's kappa of 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90). Logistic regression confirmed better agreement with higher antibody titers. The BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test demonstrated good performance in measuring detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, supporting the utility of such rapid point-of-care serological testing to guide the public health responses and vaccine prioritization.

Severity of Illness in Persons Infected With the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant vs Beta Variant in Qatar.

Importance: The Delta variant is now the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 strain worldwide. Severity of illness in persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant compared with the Beta variant is not known. Objective: To directly compare clinical outcomes in persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant vs those infected with the Beta variant in Qatar. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the national COVID-19 database in Qatar, which includes information on all individuals who were ever tested for SARS-CoV-2 using a reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test and all individuals who received any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Qatar. Among persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 22 and July 7, 2021, those infected with the Delta variant were identified and were propensity score matched with control individuals infected with the Beta variant. The variants were ascertained by variant genotyping of the positive samples. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta or Beta variant. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were admission to the hospital, admission to the intensive care unit, use of supplemental oxygen, use of high-flow oxygen, receipt of mechanical ventilation, or death among those infected with the Delta or Beta variant overall and stratified by vaccination status. Results: Among 1427 persons infected with the Delta variant (252 [55.9%] male; median age, 34 years [IQR, 17-43 years]) and 5353 persons infected with the Beta variant (233 [51.7%] male; median age, 34 years [IQR, 17-45 years]), 451 propensity score-matched pairs were identified. Persons infected with the Delta variant were more likely to be hospitalized (27.3% [95% CI, 23.2%-31.6%] vs 20.0% [95% CI, 16.4-24.0]; P = .01) or to have mild-moderate or severe-critical disease outcomes (27.9% [95% CI, 23.8%-32.3%] vs 20.2% [95% CI, 16.6%-24.2%]; P = .01) compared with persons infected with the Beta variant. Infection with the Delta variant was independently associated with higher odds of experiencing any adverse outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.53; 95% CI, 1.72-3.72). Compared with being unvaccinated, being vaccinated with a second dose more than 3 months before infection was associated with lower odds of any adverse outcome among persons infected with the Delta variant (aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.26) and among those infected with the Beta variant (aOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.98). Protection was similar among those who received a second vaccine dose less than 3 months before infection, but having received only a single dose was not associated with a lower odds of any severe outcome among those infected with the Delta variant (aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.41-3.06) or those infected with the Beta variant (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.20-2.72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of persons with COVID-19 in Qatar, infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was associated with more severe disease than was infection with the Beta variant. Being unvaccinated was associated with greater odds of severe-critical disease.

Effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycles on the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.

Several studies have investigated the effect of repeated freeze-thaw (F/T) cycles on RNA detection for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, no data are available regarding the effect of repeated F/T cycles on SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection in serum. We investigated the effect of multiple F/T cycles on anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection using an ELISA test targeting the nucleocapsid antibodies. Ten positive and 1 negative SARS-CoV-2 IgG sera from 11 participants, in replicates of 5, were subjected to a total of 16 F/T cycles and stored at 4 °C until tested by ELISA. Statistical analysis was performed to test for F/T cycle effect. None of the 10 positive sera became negative after 16 F/T cycles. There was no significant difference in the OD average reading between the first and last F/T cycles, except for one serum with a minimal decline in the OD. The random effect linear regression of log (OD) on the number of cycles showed no significant trend, with a slope consistent with zero (B=-0.0001; 95 % CI -0.0008; 0.0006; P-value=0.781). These results suggest that multiple F/T cycles had no effect on the ability of the ELISA assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.

Analytic comparison between three high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays reveals minor discrepancies in a high-incidence population.

Performance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 "ever" (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting. PCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals. SARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2-95.7%, 89.3-92.8%, and 93.8-97.8%, respectively; Cohen's kappa statistic ranged from 0.86 to 0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. All three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.

Diagnostic Efficiency of Three Fully Automated Serology Assays and Their Correlation with a Novel Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 Individuals.

To support the deployment of serology assays for population screening during the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared the performance of three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays: Mindray CL-900i® (target: spike [S] and nucleocapsid [N]), BioMérieux VIDAS®3 (target: receptor-binding domain [RBD]) and Diasorin LIAISON®XL (target: S1 and S2 subunits). A total of 111 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR- positive samples collected at ≥ 21 days post symptom onset, and 127 pre-pandemic control samples were included. Diagnostic performance was assessed in correlation to RT-PCR and a surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT). Moreover, cross-reactivity with other viral antibodies was investigated. Compared to RT-PCR, LIAISON®XL showed the highest overall specificity (100%), followed by VIDAS®3 (98.4%) and CL-900i® (95.3%). The highest sensitivity was demonstrated by CL-900i® (90.1%), followed by VIDAS®3 (88.3%) and LIAISON®XL (85.6%). The sensitivity of all assays was higher in symptomatic patients (91.1-98.2%) compared to asymptomatic patients (78.4-80.4%). In correlation to sVNT, all assays showed excellent sensitivities (92.2-96.1%). In addition, VIDAS®3 demonstrated the best correlation (r = 0.75) with the sVNT. The present study provides insights on the performance of three fully automated assays, which could help diagnostic laboratories in the choice of a particular assay according to the intended use.

Performance evaluation of five ELISA kits for detecting anti-SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the performances of five commercial ELISA assays (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. METHODS: Seventy negative control samples (collected before the COVID-19 pandemic) and samples from 101 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected at different time points from symptom onset: ≤7, 8-14 and >14 days) were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and positive and negative predictive values of each assay with RT-PCR. A concordance assessment between the five assays was also conducted. Cross-reactivity with other HCoV, non-HCoV respiratory viruses, non-respiratory viruses, and nuclear antigens was investigated. RESULTS: Lionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%; 95% CI 92.3-99.8), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%; 95% CI 90.2-99.2), NovaTec (85.7%; 95% CI 75.7-92.1), then AnshLabs (75.7%; 95% CI 64.5-84.2). All ELISA kits cross-reacted with one anti-MERS IgG-positive sample, except Lionex. The sensitivity was low during the early stages of the disease but improved over time. After 14 days from symptom onset, Lionex and NovaTec showed the highest sensitivity at 87.9% (95% CI 72.7-95.2) and 86.4% (95% CI 78.5-91.7), respectively. The agreement with RT-PCR results based on Cohen's kappa was as follows: Lionex (0.89) > NovaTec (0.70) > Dia.Pro (0.69) > AnshLabs (0.63) > EDI (0.55). CONCLUSION: The Lionex and NovaLisa IgG ELISA kits, demonstrated the best overall performance.