Post-acute sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection by viral variant and vaccination status: a multicenter cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Disentangling the effects of SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccination on the occurrence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is crucial to estimate and reduce the burden of PASC. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis (May/June 2022) within a prospective multicenter healthcare worker (HCW) cohort in North-Eastern Switzerland. HCW were stratified by viral variant and vaccination status at time of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. HCW without positive swab and with negative serology served as controls. The sum of eighteen self-reported PASC symptoms was modeled with univariable and multivariable negative-binomial regression to analyse the association of mean symptom number with viral variant and vaccination status. RESULTS: Among 2'912 participants (median age 44 years, 81.3% female), PASC symptoms were significantly more frequent after wild-type infection (estimated mean symptom number 1.12, p<0.001; median time since infection 18.3 months), after Alpha/Delta infection (0.67 symptoms, p<0.001; 6.5 months), and after Omicron BA.1 infections (0.52 symptoms, p=0.005; 3.1 months) compared to uninfected controls (0.39 symptoms). After Omicron BA.1 infection, the estimated mean symptom number was 0.36 for unvaccinated individuals, compared to 0.71 with 1-2 vaccinations (p=0.028) and 0.49 with ≥3 prior vaccinations (p=0.30). Adjusting for confounders, only wild-type (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-3.83) and Alpha/Delta infection (aRR 1.93, 95% CI 1.10-3.46) were significantly associated with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Previous infection with pre-Omicron variants was the strongest risk factor for PASC symptoms among our HCW. Vaccination prior to Omicron BA.1 infection was not associated with a clear protective effect against PASC symptoms in this population.

Pulmonary Surfactant Proteins are Inhibited by IgA Autoantibodies in Severe COVID-19.

RATIONALE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome with fatal outcomes. Evidence suggests that dysregulated immune responses, including autoimmunity, are key pathogenic factors. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether IgA autoantibodies target lung-specific proteins and contribute to disease severity. METHODS: We collected 147 blood, 9 lung tissue, and 36 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from three tertiary hospitals in Switzerland and one in Germany. Severe COVID-19 was defined by the need to administer oxygen. We investigated the presence of IgA autoantibodies and their effects on pulmonary surfactant in COVID-19 using the following methods: immunofluorescence on tissue samples, immunoprecipitations followed by mass spectrometry on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays on blood samples, and surface tension measurements with medical surfactant. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: IgA autoantibodies targeting pulmonary surfactant proteins B and C were elevated in patients with severe COVID-19, but not in patients with influenza or bacterial pneumonia. Notably, pulmonary surfactant failed to reduce surface tension after incubation with either plasma or purified IgA from patients with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that patients with severe COVID-19 harbor IgA against pulmonary surfactant proteins B and C and that these antibodies block the function of lung surfactant, potentially contributing to alveolar collapse and poor oxygenation. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Symptoms Compatible With Long Coronavirus Disease (COVID) in Healthcare Workers With and Without Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection-Results of a Prospective Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The burden of long-term symptoms (ie, long COVID) in patients after mild COVID-19 is debated. Within a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), frequency and risk factors for symptoms compatible with long COVID are assessed. METHODS: Participants answered baseline (August/September 2020) and weekly questionnaires on SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) results and acute disease symptoms. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed; in March, symptoms compatible with long COVID (including psychometric scores) were asked and compared between HCWs with positive NPS, seropositive HCWs without positive NPS (presumable asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic infections), and negative controls. The effect of time since diagnosis and quantitative anti-spike protein antibodies (anti-S) was evaluated. Poisson regression was used to identify risk factors for symptom occurrence. RESULTS: Of 3334 HCWs (median, 41 years; 80% female), 556 (17%) had a positive NPS and 228 (7%) were only seropositive. HCWs with positive NPS more frequently reported ≥1 symptom compared with controls (73% vs 52%, P < .001); seropositive HCWs without positive NPS did not score higher than controls (58% vs 52%, P = .13), although impaired taste/olfaction (16% vs 6%, P < .001) and hair loss (17% vs 10%, P = .004) were more common. Exhaustion/burnout was reported by 24% of negative controls. Many symptoms remained elevated in those diagnosed >6 months ago; anti-S titers correlated with high symptom scores. Acute viral symptoms in weekly questionnaires best predicted long-COVID symptoms. Physical activity at baseline was negatively associated with neurocognitive impairment and fatigue scores. CONCLUSIONS: Seropositive HCWs without positive NPS are only mildly affected by long COVID. Exhaustion/burnout is common, even in noninfected HCWs. Physical activity might be protective against neurocognitive impairment/fatigue symptoms after COVID-19.

Safety Evaluation of a Medical Congress Held During the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Prospective Cohort.

Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, few scientific congresses have been held on-site. We prospectively evaluated the safety concept of the congress of the Swiss Societies of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Hygiene. Methods: The congress was held in Geneva (Switzerland) while local COVID-19 incidence (with SARS-CoV-2 wild type circulating) was 65/100,000 population (September 2020). A rigorous safety concept was implemented. Congress attendees filled out a questionnaire to assess risk perception, exposures, symptoms and diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 before, during and after the congress. Dried blood spots were taken on-site and 4 weeks later to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversions. Results: Of 365 congress attendees, 196 (54%) either answered the questionnaire (N = 150) or provided baseline and follow-up blood samples (N = 168). None of the participants reported a positive PCR in the 2 weeks after the congress. Five of 168 (3%) participants were seropositive at follow-up, all of which had already been positive at baseline. Conclusion: Findings indicate that congresses with a rigorous safety concept may take place, even in areas with moderately-high COVID-19 activity. Whether this holds true in vaccinated populations and with more transmissible viral variants circulating remains unclear.

Impact of respirator versus surgical masks on SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in healthcare workers: a prospective multicentre cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) versus surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW). METHODS: Our prospective multicentre cohort enrolled HCW from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferentially worn mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures. The impact of FFP2 on (1) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and (2) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 3259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users; seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR 10.1, 95% CI 7.5-13.5; aOR 5.0, 95% CI 3.9-6.5). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (> 20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 0.7 for positive swab, 95% CI 0.5-0.8; aOR 0.6 for seroconversion, 95% CI 0.4-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Respirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients.

No neutralizing effect of pre-existing tick-borne encephalitis virus antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2: a prospective healthcare worker study.

Certain immunizations including vaccination against tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) have been suggested to confer cross-protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Within a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the potentially protective role of anti-TBEV antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among 3352 HCW, those with ≥ 1 previous TBEV vaccination (n = 2018, 60%) showed a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7-1.0, P = 0.02). However, laboratory testing of a subgroup of 26 baseline and follow-up samples did not demonstrate any neutralizing effect of anti-TBEV antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in live-virus neutralization assay. However, we observed significantly higher anti-TBEV antibody titers in follow-up samples of participants with previous TBEV vaccination compared to baseline, both TBEV neutralizing (p = 0.001) and total IgG (P < 0.0001), irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Based on these data, we conclude that the observed association of previous TBEV vaccination and reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is likely due to residual confounding factors. The increase in TBEV follow-up antibody titers can be explained by natural TBEV exposure or potential non-specific immune activation upon exposure to various pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2. We believe that these findings, although negative, contribute to the current knowledge on potential cross-immunity against SARS-CoV-2 from previous immunizations.

Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is Associated With Elevated Serum Immunoglobulin (Ig) A and Antiphospholipid IgA Antibodies.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) frequently entails complications that bear similarities to autoimmune diseases. To date, there are little data on possible immunoglobulin (Ig) A-mediated autoimmune responses. Here, we aim to determine whether COVID-19 is associated with a vigorous total IgA response and whether IgA antibodies are associated with complications of severe illness. Since thrombotic events are frequent in severe COVID-19 and resemble hypercoagulation of antiphospholipid syndrome, our approach focused on antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data and aPL from 64 patients with COVID-19 were compared from 3 independent tertiary hospitals (1 in Liechtenstein, 2 in Switzerland). Samples were collected from 9 April to 1 May 2020. RESULTS: Clinical records of 64 patients with COVID-19 were reviewed and divided into a cohort with mild illness (mCOVID; 41%), a discovery cohort with severe illness (sdCOVID; 22%) and a confirmation cohort with severe illness (scCOVID; 38%). Total IgA, IgG, and aPL were measured with clinical diagnostic kits. Severe illness was significantly associated with increased total IgA (sdCOVID, P = .01; scCOVID, P < .001), but not total IgG. Among aPL, both cohorts with severe illness significantly correlated with elevated anticardiolipin IgA (sdCOVID and scCOVID, P < .001), anticardiolipin IgM (sdCOVID, P = .003; scCOVID, P< .001), and anti-beta 2 glycoprotein-1 IgA (sdCOVID and scCOVID, P< .001). Systemic lupus erythematosus was excluded from all patients as a potential confounder. CONCLUSIONS: Higher total IgA and IgA-aPL were consistently associated with severe illness. These novel data strongly suggest that a vigorous antiviral IgA response, possibly triggered in the bronchial mucosa, induces systemic autoimmunity.

Digital SARS-CoV-2 Detection Among Hospital Employees: Participatory Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of novel techniques as a complement to traditional disease surveillance systems represents an additional opportunity for rapid analysis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to describe a web-based participatory surveillance strategy among health care workers (HCWs) in two Swiss hospitals during the first wave of COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective cohort of HCWs was recruited in March 2020 at the Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen and the Eastern Switzerland Children's Hospital. For data analysis, we used a combination of the following techniques: locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) regression, Spearman correlation, anomaly detection, and random forest. RESULTS: From March 23 to August 23, 2020, a total of 127,684 SMS text messages were sent, generating 90,414 valid reports among 1004 participants, achieving a weekly average of 4.5 (SD 1.9) reports per user. The symptom showing the strongest correlation with a positive polymerase chain reaction test result was loss of taste. Symptoms like red eyes or a runny nose were negatively associated with a positive test. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed favorable performance of the classification tree, with an accuracy of 88% for the training data and 89% for the test data. Nevertheless, while the prediction matrix showed good specificity (80.0%), sensitivity was low (10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Loss of taste was the symptom that was most aligned with COVID-19 activity at the population level. At the individual level-using machine learning-based random forest classification-reporting loss of taste and limb/muscle pain as well as the absence of runny nose and red eyes were the best predictors of COVID-19.

Impact of baseline SARS-CoV-2 antibody status on syndromic surveillance and the risk of subsequent COVID-19-a prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline serostatus. METHODS: Baseline serologies were performed among HCW from 23 Swiss healthcare institutions between June and September 2020, before the second COVID-19 wave. Participants answered weekly electronic questionnaires covering information about nasopharyngeal swabs (PCR/rapid antigen tests) and symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Screening of symptomatic staff by nasopharyngeal swabs was routinely performed in participating facilities. We compared numbers of positive nasopharyngeal tests and occurrence of COVID-19 symptoms between HCW with and without anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. RESULTS: A total of 4812 HCW participated, wherein 144 (3%) were seropositive at baseline. We analyzed 107,807 questionnaires with a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Median number of answered questionnaires was similar (24 vs. 23 per person, P = 0.83) between those with and without positive baseline serology. Among 2712 HCW with ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 test during follow-up, 3/67 (4.5%) seropositive individuals reported a positive result (one of whom asymptomatic), compared to 547/2645 (20.7%) seronegative participants, 12 of whom asymptomatic (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 0.66). Seropositive HCWs less frequently reported impaired olfaction/taste (6/144, 4.2% vs. 588/4674, 12.6%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.73), chills (19/144, 13.2% vs. 1040/4674, 22.3%, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90), and limb/muscle pain (28/144, 19.4% vs. 1335/4674, 28.6%, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.49-0.95). Impaired olfaction/taste and limb/muscle pain also discriminated best between positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 results. CONCLUSIONS: Having SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies provides almost 80% protection against SARS-CoV-2 re-infection for a period of at least 8 months.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Swiss hospital workers: Results of a prospective cohort study.

In this prospective cohort of 1,012 Swiss hospital employees, 3 different assays were used to screen serum for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seropositivity was 1%; the positive predictive values of the lateral-flow immunoassay were 64% (IgG) and 13% (IgM). History of fever and myalgia most effectively differentiated seropositive and seronegative participants.

Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers - A multicentre cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population. METHODS: Between 22 June 22 and 15 August 2020, HCWs from institutions in northern/eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: Among 4664 HCWs from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR 59, 95% CI 33-106), stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) and male sex (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.1). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), active smoking (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7), living with children <12 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and being a physician (aOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5) were associated with decreased risk. Other occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.4), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-2.9), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.9) and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.8). DISCUSSION: Living with COVID-19-positive households showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable work-related risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCWs. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study.

Characteristics of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza at time of hospital admission: a single center comparative study.

BACKGROUND: In the future, co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses A/B is likely. From a clinical point of view, differentiation of the two disease entities is crucial for patient management. We therefore aim to detect clinical differences between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza patients at time of hospital admission. METHODS: In this single-center observational study, we included all consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 or influenza between November 2019 and May 2020. Data were extracted from a nationwide surveillance program and from electronic health records. COVID-19 and influenza patients were compared in terms of baseline characteristics, clinical presentation and outcome. We used recursive partitioning to generate a classification tree to discriminate COVID-19 from influenza patients. RESULTS: We included 96 COVID-19 and 96 influenza patients. Median age was 68 vs. 70 years (p = 0.90), 72% vs. 56% (p = 0.024) were males, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 1 vs. 2 (p = 0.027) in COVID-19 and influenza patients, respectively. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission was longer for COVID-19 (median 7 days, IQR 3-10) than for influenza patients (median 3 days, IQR 2-5, p < 0.001). Other variables favoring a diagnosis of COVID-19 in the classification tree were higher systolic blood pressure, lack of productive sputum, and lack of headache. The tree classified 86/192 patients (45%) into two subsets with ≥80% of patients having influenza or COVID-19, respectively. In-hospital mortality was higher for COVID-19 patients (16% vs. 5%, p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Discriminating COVID-19 from influenza patients based on clinical presentation is challenging. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission is considerably longer in COVID-19 than in influenza patients and showed the strongest discriminatory power in our classification tree. Although they had fewer comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was higher for COVID-19 patients.

Diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection is associated with reduced HIV viral load and lower risk for opportunistic infections in people living with HIV.

Approximately 28% of the human population have been exposed to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), with the overwhelming majority of infected individuals not developing disease (latent TB infection (LTBI)). While it is known that uncontrolled HIV infection is a major risk factor for the development of TB, the effect of underlying LTBI on HIV disease progression is less well characterized, in part because longitudinal data are lacking. We sorted all participants of the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) with at least 1 documented MTB test into one of the 3 groups: MTB uninfected, LTBI, or active TB. To detect differences in the HIV set point viral load (SPVL), linear regression was used; the frequency of the most common opportunistic infections (OIs) in the SHCS between MTB uninfected patients, patients with LTBI, and patients with active TB were compared using logistic regression and time-to-event analyses. In adjusted models, we corrected for baseline demographic characteristics, i.e., HIV transmission risk group and gender, geographic region, year of HIV diagnosis, and CD4 nadir. A total of 13,943 SHCS patients had at least 1 MTB test documented, of whom 840 (6.0%) had LTBI and 770 (5.5%) developed active TB. Compared to MTB uninfected patients, LTBI was associated with a 0.24 decreased log HIV SPVL in the adjusted model (p < 0.0001). Patients with LTBI had lower odds of having candida stomatitis (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, p = 0.0035) and oral hairy leukoplakia (adjusted OR = 0.67, p = 0.033) when compared to MTB uninfected patients. The association of LTBI with a reduced HIV set point virus load and fewer unrelated infections in HIV/TB coinfected patients suggests a more complex interaction between LTBI and HIV than previously assumed.

Characteristics of Three Different Chemiluminescence Assays for Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

Several tests based on chemiluminescence immunoassay techniques have become available to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. There is currently insufficient data on serology assay performance beyond 35 days after symptoms onset. We aimed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests on three widely used platforms. A chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA; Abbott Diagnostics, USA), a luminescence immunoassay (LIA; Diasorin, Italy), and an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA; Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland) were investigated. In a multigroup study, sensitivity was assessed in a group of participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (n = 145), whereas specificity was determined in two groups of participants without evidence of COVID-19 (i.e., healthy blood donors, n = 191, and healthcare workers, n = 1002). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, multilevel likelihood ratios (LR), and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were characterized. Finally, analytical specificity was characterized in samples with evidence of the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (n = 9), cytomegalovirus (CMV) (n = 7), and endemic common-cold coronavirus infections (n = 12) taken prior to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The diagnostic accuracy was comparable in all three assays (AUC 0.98). Using the manufacturers' cut-offs, the sensitivities were 90%, 95% confidence interval [84,94] (LIA), 93% [88,96] (CMIA), and 96% [91,98] (ECLIA). The specificities were 99.5% [98.9,99.8] (CMIA), 99.7% [99.3,99.9] (LIA), and 99.9% [99.5,99.98] (ECLIA). The LR at half of the manufacturers' cut-offs were 60 (CMIA), 82 (LIA), and 575 (ECLIA) for positive and 0.043 (CMIA) and 0.035 (LIA, ECLIA) for negative results. ECLIA had higher PPV at low pretest probabilities than CMIA and LIA. No interference with EBV or CMV infection was observed, whereas endemic coronavirus in some cases provided signals in LIA and/or CMIA. Although the diagnostic accuracy of the three investigated assays is comparable, their performance in low-prevalence settings is different. Introducing gray zones at half of the manufacturers' cut-offs is suggested, especially for orthogonal testing approaches that use a second assay for confirmation.

Characterization of a Pan-Immunoglobulin Assay Quantifying Antibodies Directed against the Receptor Binding Domain of the SARS-CoV-2 S1-Subunit of the Spike Protein: A Population-Based Study.

Pan-immunoglobulin assays can simultaneously detect IgG, IgM and IgA directed against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the S1 subunit of the spike protein (S) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 S1-RBD Ig). In this work, we aim to evaluate a quantitative SARS-CoV-2 S1-RBD Ig electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) regarding analytical, diagnostic, operational and clinical characteristics. Our work takes the form of a population-based study in the principality of Liechtenstein, including 125 cases with clinically well-described and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 1159 individuals without evidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 cases were tested for antibodies in sera taken with a median of 48 days (interquartile range, IQR, 43-52) and 139 days (IQR, 129-144) after symptom onset. Sera were also tested with other assays targeting antibodies against non-RBD-S1 and -S1/S2 epitopes. Sensitivity was 97.6% (95% confidence interval, CI, 93.2-99.1), whereas specificity was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.4-99.9). Antibody levels linearly decreased from hospitalized patients to symptomatic outpatients and SARS-CoV-2 infection without symptoms (p < 0.001). Among cases with SARS-CoV-2 infection, smokers had lower antibody levels than non-smokers (p = 0.04), and patients with fever had higher antibody levels than patients without fever (p = 0.001). Pan-SARS-CoV-2 S1-RBD Ig in SARS-CoV-2 infection cases significantly increased from first to second follow-up (p < 0.001). A substantial proportion of individuals without evidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection displayed non-S1-RBD antibody reactivities (248/1159, i.e., 21.4%, 95% CI, 19.1-23.4). In conclusion, a quantitative SARS-CoV-2 S1-RBD Ig assay offers favorable and sustained assay characteristics allowing the determination of quantitative associations between clinical characteristics (e.g., disease severity, smoking or fever) and antibody levels. The assay could also help to identify individuals with antibodies of non-S1-RBD specificity with potential clinical cross-reactivity to SARS-CoV-2.

Temporal Course of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Positivity in Patients with COVID-19 following the First Clinical Presentation.

Knowledge of the sensitivities of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests beyond 35 days after the clinical onset of COVID-19 is insufficient. We aimed to describe positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 assays employing three different measurement principles over a prolonged period. Two hundred sixty-eight samples from 180 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test followed by serological investigation of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were included. We conducted three chemiluminescence (including electrochemiluminescence assay (ECLIA)), four enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test formats. Positivity rates, as well as positive (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs), were calculated for each week after the first clinical presentation for COVID-19. Furthermore, combinations of tests were assessed within an orthogonal testing approach employing two independent assays and predictive values were calculated. Heat maps were constructed to graphically illustrate operational test characteristics. During a follow-up period of more than 9 weeks, chemiluminescence assays and one ELISA IgG test showed stable positivity rates after the third week. With the exception of ECLIA, the PPVs of the other chemiluminescence assays were ≥95% for COVID-19 only after the second week. ELISA and LFIA had somewhat lower PPVs. IgM exhibited insufficient predictive characteristics. An orthogonal testing approach provided PPVs ≥ 95% for patients with a moderate pretest probability (e.g., symptomatic patients), even for tests with a low single test performance. After the second week, NPVs of all but IgM assays were ≥95% for patients with low to moderate pretest probability. The confirmation of negative results using an orthogonal algorithm with another assay provided lower NPVs than the single assays. When interpreting results from SARS-CoV-2 tests, the pretest probability, time of blood draw, and assay characteristics must be carefully considered. An orthogonal testing approach increases the accuracy of positive, but not negative, predictions.

Flattening the curve in 52 days: characterisation of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Principality of Liechtenstein - an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The principality of Liechtenstein had its first COVID-19 case at the beginning of March 2020. After exponential growth, the pandemic’s first wave was contained, with the last case being diagnosed 52 days after the initial occurrence. AIM: To characterise the COVID-19 pandemic in Liechtenstein. METHODS: All patients diagnosed in Liechtenstein were followed up until recovery and again 6–8 weeks after symptom onset. They were contacted every 2 days to record their clinical status until the resolution of their symptoms. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was based on clinical symptoms and molecular testing. Household and close workplace contacts were included in the follow-up, which also comprised antibody testing. In addition, public health measures installed during the pandemic in Liechtenstein are summarised. RESULTS: During the first wave, 5% of the population obtained a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction test. A total of 95 patients (median age 39 years) were diagnosed with COVID-19 (82 who resided in Liechtenstein), resulting in an incidence in Liechtenstein of 0.211%. One patient, aged 94, died (mortality rate 1%). Only 62% of patients could retrospectively identify a potential source of infection. Testing the patients’ household and close workplace contacts (n = 170) with antibody tests revealed that 25% of those tested were additional COVID-19 cases, a quarter of whom were asymptomatic. Those households which adhered to strict isolation measures had a significantly lower rate of affected household members than those who didn’t follow such measures. The national public health measures never restricted free movement of residents. Masks were only mandatory in healthcare settings. The use of home working for the general workforce was promoted. Gatherings were prohibited. Schools, universities, certain public spaces (like sports facilities and playgrounds), childcare facilities, nonessential shops, restaurants and bars were closed. Social distancing, hygienic measures, solidarity and supporting individuals who were at risk were the main pillars of the public health campaigns. CONCLUSION: The close collaboration of all relevant stakeholders allowed for the complete workup of all COVID-19 patients nationwide. A multitude of factors (e.g., young age of the patients, low-threshold access to testing, close monitoring of cases, high alertness and adherence to public health measures by the population) led to the early containment of the first wave of the pandemic, with a very low rate of serious outcomes. Antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 revealed a substantial proportion of undiagnosed COVID-19 cases among close contacts of the patients.

Frequency of serological non-responders and false-negative RT-PCR results in SARS-CoV-2 testing: a population-based study.

Objectives The sensitivity of molecular and serological methods for COVID-19 testing in an epidemiological setting is not well described. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency of negative RT-PCR results at first clinical presentation as well as negative serological results after a follow-up of at least 3 weeks. Methods Among all patients seen for suspected COVID-19 in Liechtenstein (n=1921), we included initially RT-PCR positive index patients (n=85) as well as initially RT-PCR negative (n=66) for follow-up with SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Antibodies were detected with seven different commercially available immunoassays. Frequencies of negative RT-PCR and serology results in individuals with COVID-19 were determined and compared to those observed in a validation cohort of Swiss patients (n=211). Results Among COVID-19 patients in Liechtenstein, false-negative RT-PCR at initial presentation was seen in 18% (12/66), whereas negative serology in COVID-19 patients was 4% (3/85). The validation cohort showed similar frequencies: 2/66 (3%) for negative serology, and 16/155 (10%) for false negative RT-PCR. COVID-19 patients with negative follow-up serology tended to have a longer disease duration (p=0.05) and more clinical symptoms than other patients with COVID-19 (p<0.05). The antibody titer from quantitative immunoassays was positively associated with the number of disease symptoms and disease duration (p<0.001). Conclusions RT-PCR at initial presentation in patients with suspected COVID-19 can miss infected patients. Antibody titers of SARS-CoV-2 assays are linked to the number of disease symptoms and the duration of disease. One in 25 patients with RT-PCR-positive COVID-19 does not develop antibodies detectable with frequently employed and commercially available immunoassays.

EDTA-Anticoagulated Whole Blood for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing by Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA) and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA).

While lateral flow test formats can be utilized with whole blood and low sample volumes, their diagnostic characteristics are inferior to immunoassays based on chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technology. CLIAs and ELISAs can be automated to a high degree but commonly require larger serum or plasma volumes for sample processing. We addressed the suitability of EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood as an alternative sample material for antibody testing against SARS-CoV-2 by electro-CLIA (ECLIA; Roche, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and ELISA (IgG and IgA; Euroimmun, Germany). Simultaneously drawn venous serum and EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood samples from 223 individuals were included. Correction of the whole blood results for hematocrit led to a good agreement with the serum results for weakly to moderately positive antibody signals. In receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis, all three assays displayed comparable diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve (AUC)) using corrected whole blood and serum (AUCs: 0.97 for ECLIA and IgG ELISA; 0.84 for IgA ELISA). In conclusion, our results suggest that the investigated assays can reliably detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in hemolyzed whole blood anticoagulated with EDTA. Correction of these results for hematocrit is suggested. This study demonstrates that the automated processing of whole blood for identification of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with common ECLIA and ELISA methods is accurate and feasible.