Diagnosis and main types of coronavirus in humans: a narrative review / Uma análise dos principais diagnósticos de Sars-cov-2 disponíveis no Brasil: uma revisão de literatura / Diagnóstico y principales tipos de coronavirus en humanos: una revisión narrativa

Introdução: Com a emergência do SARS-CoV-2 foi disponibilizado uma grande quantidade de ferramentas de diagnóstico. Neste contexto, a falta de vacina, de tratamento e o grande número de casos graves e morte, possibilitou a aprovação emergencial de diversos testes, que ainda necessitam de estudos populacionais para seu registro definitivo. Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão de literatura para avaliar as metodologias de diagnóstico disponíveis no Brasil, de acordo com a realidade local de saúde, explorando o momento epidemiológico a complexidade do teste e a finalidade da sua aplicação. Metodologia: Trata-se de um estudo bibliográfico, descritivo do tipo revisão de literatura. Foram utilizadas as seguintes bases de dados científicos para buscas: PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS E COCHRANE LIBRARY, através de descritores selecionados na plataforma DECS. Resultados: O cenário de diversos ensaios, baseados em diferentes metodologias, como os testes baseados em RNA viral, em detecção de antígenos virais ou de anticorpos, associados ao conhecimento da história natural do vírus, possibilita uma análise crítica do melhor diagnóstico de acordo com a clínica do paciente, os epidemiológicos, o objetivo do diagnóstico e a acurácia do ensaio. Atualmente, há mudança no padrão imunológico da população e a descrição de tipos e subtipos de SARS-CoV-2 com mudanças gênicas, que podem levar a mudanças na acurácia diagnóstica ou a re-emergência em surtos de doença grave. Conclusão: Ainda é incerto o caminho evolutivo da história natural da Covid-19 e os ensaios diagnósticos estão em diferentes estágios de desenvolvimento, validação e produção e cada tipo de teste tem suas próprias vantagens e desvantagens distintas inerentes a plataforma tecnológica de origem e uma combinação de tipos de testes usados em momentos diferentes pode ser útil para a condução clínica dos pacientes e no controle da pandemia por SARS-CoV-2.

Introduction: With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, a large number of diagnostic tools were made available. In this context, the lack of vaccine, treatment and the large number of severe cases and death, allowed the emergency approval of several tests, which still require population studies for their definitive registration. Objective: To carry out a literature review to evaluate the diagnostic methodologies available in Brazil, according to the local health reality, exploring the epidemiological moment, the complexity of the test and the purpose of its application. Methodology: This is a bibliographic, descriptive study of the literature review type. The following scientific databases were used for searches: PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS AND COCHRANE LIBRARY, through selected descriptors on the DECS platform. Results: The scenario of several tests, based on different methodologies, such as tests based on viral RNA, on detection of viral antigens or antibodies, associated with knowledge of the natural history of the virus, allows a critical analysis of the best diagnosis according to the patient's clinical, epidemiological, diagnostic objective and assay accuracy. Currently, there is a change in the immune pattern of the population and the description of types and subtypes of SARS-CoV-2 with genetic changes, which can lead to changes in diagnostic accuracy or the re-emergence in outbreaks of severe disease. Conclusion: The evolutionary path of the natural history of Covid-19 is still uncertain and diagnostic assays are at different stages of development, validation and production and each type of test has its own distinct advantages and disadvantages inherent in the technology platform of origin and a combination of types of tests used at different times can be useful for the clinical management of patients and in the control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Introducción: Con la aparición del SARS-CoV-2, se dispuso de un gran número de herramientas diagnósticas. En este contexto, la falta de vacuna, tratamiento y el gran número de casos graves y muerte, permitieron la aprobación de urgencia de varias pruebas, que aún requieren estudios poblacionales para su registro definitivo. Objetivo: Realizar una revisión bibliográfica para evaluar las metodologías diagnósticas disponibles en Brasil, de acuerdo con la realidad sanitaria local, explorando el momento epidemiológico, la complejidad de la prueba y la finalidad de su aplicación. Metodología: Se trata de un estudio bibliográfico, descriptivo, del tipo revisión de literatura. Para las búsquedas se utilizaron las siguientes bases de datos científicas PUBMED, MEDLINE, LILACS Y COCHRANE LIBRARY, a través de descriptores seleccionados en la plataforma DECS. Resultados: El escenario de varias pruebas, basadas en diferentes metodologías, como pruebas basadas en el ARN viral, en la detección de antígenos virales o anticuerpos, asociado al conocimiento de la historia natural del virus, permite un análisis crítico del mejor diagnóstico de acuerdo con la clínica del paciente, epidemiológica, objetivo diagnóstico y precisión de la prueba. Actualmente, hay un cambio en el patrón inmunológico de la población y la descripción de tipos y subtipos de SARS-CoV-2 con cambios genéticos, que pueden conducir a cambios en la precisión diagnóstica o la reaparición en brotes de enfermedad grave. Conclusiones: El camino evolutivo de la historia natural del Covid-19 es aún incierto y los ensayos de diagnóstico se encuentran en diferentes etapas de desarrollo, validación y producción y cada tipo de prueba tiene sus propias ventajas y desventajas distintas inherentes a la plataforma tecnológica de origen y una combinación de tipos de pruebas utilizadas en diferentes momentos puede ser útil para el manejo clínico de los pacientes y en el control de la pandemia de SARS- CoV-2.

Performance of 20 rapid antigen detection tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants using a clinical specimen panel from January 2022, Berlin, Germany.

BackgroundThere are conflicting reports on the performance of rapid antigen detection tests (RDT) in the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant; however, these tests continue to be used frequently to detect potentially contagious individuals with high viral loads.AimThe aim of this study was to investigate comparative detection of the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron variants by using a selection of 20 RDT and a limited panel of pooled combined oro- and nasopharyngeal clinical Delta and Omicron specimens.MethodsWe tested 20 CE-marked RDT for their performance to detect SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron by using a panel of pooled clinical specimens collected in January 2022 in Berlin, Germany.ResultsWe observed equivalent detection performance for Delta and Omicron for most RDT, and sensitivity was widely in line with our previous pre-Delta/Omicron evaluation. Some variation for individual RDT was observed either for Delta vs Omicron detection, or when compared with the previous evaluation, which may be explained both by different panel sizes resulting in different data robustness and potential limitation of batch-to-batch consistency. Additional experiments with three RDT using non-pooled routine clinical samples confirmed comparable performance to detect Delta vs Omicron. Overall, RDT that were previously positively evaluated retained good performance also for Delta and Omicron variants.ConclusionOur findings suggest that currently available RDT are sufficient for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants.

Evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 screening strategy based on serological tests.

BACKGROUND: facing the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic requires intensive testing on the population to early identify and isolate infected subjects. Although RT-PCR is the most reliable technique to detect ongoing infections, serological tests are frequently proposed as tools in heterogeneous screening strategies. OBJECTIVES: to analyse the performance of a screening strategy proposed by the local government of Tuscany (Central Italy), which first uses qualitative rapid tests for antibody detection, and then RT-PCR tests on the positive subjects. METHODS: a simulation study is conducted to investigate the number of RT-PCR tests required by the screening strategy and the undetected ongoing infections in a pseudo-population of 500,000 subjects, under different prevalence scenarios and assuming a sensitivity of the serological test ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 (specificity 0.98). A compartmental model is used to predict the number of new infections generated by the false negatives two months after the screening, under different values of the infection reproduction number. RESULTS: assuming a sensitivity equal to 0.80 and a prevalence of 0.3%, the screening procedure would require on average 11,167 RT-PCR tests and would produce 300 false negatives, responsible after two months of a number of contagions ranging from 526 to 1,132, under the optimistic scenario of a reproduction number between 0.5 to 1. Resources and false negatives increase with the prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: the analysed screening procedure should be avoided unless the prevalence and the rate of contagion are very low. The cost and effectiveness of the screening strategies should be evaluated in the actual context of the epidemic, accounting for the fact that it may change over time.

Automated, flow-based chemiluminescence microarray immunoassay for the rapid multiplex detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma (CoVRapid CL-MIA).

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for rapid serological tests that allow multiplexing emerged, as antibody seropositivity can instruct about individual immunity after an infection with SARS-CoV-2 or after vaccination. As many commercial antibody tests are either time-consuming or tend to produce false negative or false positive results when only one antigen is considered, we developed an automated, flow-based chemiluminescence microarray immunoassay (CL-MIA) that allows for the detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD), spike protein (S1 fragment), and nucleocapsid protein (N) in human serum and plasma in less than 8 min. The CoVRapid CL-MIA was tested with a set of 65 SARS-CoV-2 serology positive or negative samples, resulting in 100% diagnostic specificity and 100% diagnostic sensitivity, thus even outcompeting commercial tests run on the same sample set. Additionally, the prospect of future quantitative assessments (i.e., quantifying the level of antibodies) was demonstrated. Due to the fully automated process, the test can easily be operated in hospitals, medical practices, or vaccination centers, offering a valuable tool for COVID-19 serosurveillance. Graphical abstract.

Implementation of rapid and frequent SARS-CoV2 antigen testing and response in congregate homeless shelters.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness who live in congregate shelters are at high risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission and severe COVID-19. Current screening and response protocols using rRT-PCR in homeless shelters are expensive, require specialized staff and have delays in returning results and implementing responses. METHODS: We piloted a program to offer frequent, rapid antigen-based tests (BinaxNOW) to residents and staff of congregate-living shelters in San Francisco, California, from January 15th to February 19th, 2021. We used the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the implementation. RESULTS: Reach: We offered testing at ten of twelve eligible shelters. Shelter residents and staff had variable participation across shelters; approximately half of eligible individuals tested at least once; few tested consistently during the study. Effectiveness: 2.2% of participants tested positive. We identified three outbreaks, but none exceeded 5 cases. All BinaxNOW-positive participants were isolated or left the shelters. Adoption: We offered testing to all eligible participants within weeks of the project's initiation. Implementation: Adaptations made to increase reach and improve consistency were promptly implemented. Maintenance: San Francisco Department of Public Health expanded and maintained testing with minimal support after the end of the pilot. CONCLUSION: Rapid and frequent antigen testing for SARS-CoV2 in homeless shelters is a viable alternative to rRT-PCR testing that can lead to immediate isolation of infectious individuals. Using the RE-AIM framework, we evaluated and adapted interventions to enable the expansion and maintenance of protocols.

Validity of at-home rapid antigen lateral flow assay and artificial intelligence read to detect SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis-reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)- is expensive and often slow to yield results whereas lateral flow tests can lack sensitivity. METHODS: We tested a rapid, lateral flow antigen (LFA) assay with artificial intelligence read (LFAIR) in subjects from COVID-19 treatment trials (N = 37; daily tests for 5 days) and from a population-based study (N = 88; single test). LFAIR was compared to RT-PCR from same-day samples. RESULTS: Using each participant's first sample, LFAIR showed 86.2% sensitivity (95% CI 73.6%-98.8) and 94.3% specificity (88.8%-99.7%) compared to RT-PCR. Adjusting for days since symptom onset and repeat testing, sensitivity was 97.8% (89.9%-99.5%) on the first symptomatic day and decreased with each additional day. Sensitivity improved with artificial intelligence (AI) read (86.2%) compared to the human eye (71.4%). CONCLUSION: LFAIR showed improved accuracy compared to LFA alone. particularly early in infection.

Detection of silent infection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by serological tests.

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.

Performance of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG serological assay in South African 2 patients.

In late December 2019, pneumonia cases of unknown origin were reported in Wuhan, China. This virus was named SARS-CoV2 and the clinical syndrome was named coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). South Africa, despite strict and early lockdown has the highest infection rate in Africa. A key component of South Africa's response to SARSCoV2 was the rapid scale-up of diagnostic testing. The Abbott SARS-CoV2 assay detects IgG antibodies against the Nucleocapsid (N) protein of the SARS-CoV2 virus. This study undertook to validate and evaluate performance criteria of the Abbott assay and to establish whether this assay would show clinical utility in our population. Positive patients (n = 391) and negative controls (n = 139) were included. The Architect-i and Alinity-i systems were analyzers that were used to perform the SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay. In-house ELISA was incorporated into the study as a confirmatory serology test. A total of number of 530 participants was tested, 87% were symptomatic with infection and 13% were asymptomatic. When compared to RT-qPCR, the sensitivity of Architect and Alinity SARS-CoV2 assays was 69.5% and 64.8%, respectively. Specificity for Architect and Alinity assays was 95% and 90.3%, respectively. The Abbott assay was also compared to in house ELISA assay, with sensitivity for the Architect and Alinity assays of 94.7% and 92.5%, respectively. Specificity for Abbott Alinity assays was 91.7% higher than Abbott Architect 88.1%. Based on the current findings testing of IgG after 14 days is recommended in South Africa and supports other studies performed around the world.

Comparison of six antibody assays and two combination assays for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: In this work, six SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody assays were evaluated, namely, two pan-immunoglobulin (pan-Ig) assays [Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (named "Elecsys" in this study) and the PerkinElmer SuperFlex™ Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Ab Assay (SuperFlex_Ab)], two IgM assays [SuperFlex™ Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM Assay (SuperFlex_IgM) and YHLO iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgM (iFlash_IgM)], and two IgG assays [SuperFlex™ Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Assay (SuperFlex_IgG) and iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (iFlash_IgG)]. Combination assays of SuperFlex™ (SuperFlex_any) and iFlash (iFlash_any) were also evaluated. METHODS: A total of 438 residual serum samples from 54 COVID-19 patients in the COVID-19 group and 100 samples from individuals without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the negative control group were evaluated. RESULTS: In the early stage of COVID-19 infection, within 14 days of symptom onset, the seropositive rate was lower than that of the late stage 15 days after onset (65.4% vs 99.6%). In the total period, the pan-Ig and IgG assays had higher sensitivity (90.8-95.3%) than the IgM assays (36.5-40.7%). SuperFlex_Ab and SuperFlex_any had higher sensitivity than Elecsys and SuperFlex_IgG (p < 0.05). The specificity of all the assays was 100%, except for SuperFlex_IgM (99.0%). The concordance rate between each assay was higher (96.4-100%) in the late stage than in the early stage (77.4-98.1%). CONCLUSION: For the purpose of COVID-19 diagnosis, antibody testing should be performed 15 days after onset. For the purpose of epidemiological surveillance, highly sensitive assays should be used as much as possible, such as SuperFlex_Ab, iFlash_IgG and their combination. IgM assays were not suitable for these purposes.

Development and evaluation of a low cost IgG ELISA test based in RBD protein for COVID-19.

Serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 have proven to be important tools to fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. These serological tests can be used in low-income and remote areas for patient contact tracing, epidemiologic studies and vaccine efficacy evaluations. In this study, we used a semi-stable mammalian episomal expression system to produce high quantities of the receptor-binding domain-RBD of SARS-CoV-2 in a simple and very economical way. The recombinant antigen was tested in an in-house IgG ELISA for COVID-19 with a panel of human sera. A performance comparison of this serology test with a commercial test based on the full-length spike protein showed 100% of concordance between tests. Thus, this serological test can be an attractive and inexpensive option in scenarios of limited resources to face the COVID-19 pandemic.

Longitudinal profile of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 in a setting from Sub-Saharan Africa: A prospective longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 plays an important role for epidemiological studies, in aiding the diagnosis of COVID-19, and assess vaccine responses. Little is known on dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 serology in African settings. Here, we aimed to characterize the longitudinal antibody response profile to SARS-CoV-2 in Ethiopia. METHODS: In this prospective study, a total of 102 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were enrolled. We obtained 802 plasma samples collected serially. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were determined using four lateral flow immune-assays (LFIAs), and an electrochemiluminescent immunoassay. We determined longitudinal antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 as well as seroconversion dynamics. RESULTS: Serological positivity rate ranged between 12%-91%, depending on timing after symptom onset. There was no difference in positivity rate between severe and non-severe COVID-19 cases. The specificity ranged between 90%-97%. Agreement between different assays ranged between 84%-92%. The estimated positive predictive value (PPV) for IgM or IgG in a scenario with seroprevalence at 5% varies from 33% to 58%. Nonetheless, when the population seroprevalence increases to 25% and 50%, there is a corresponding increases in the estimated PPVs. The estimated negative-predictive value (NPV) in a low seroprevalence scenario (5%) is high (>99%). However, the estimated NPV in a high seroprevalence scenario (50%) for IgM or IgG is reduced significantly to 80% to 85%. Overall, 28/102 (27.5%) seroconverted by one or more assays tested, within a median time of 11 (IQR: 9-15) days post symptom onset. The median seroconversion time among symptomatic cases tended to be shorter when compared to asymptomatic patients [9 (IQR: 6-11) vs. 15 (IQR: 13-21) days; p = 0.002]. Overall, seroconversion reached 100% 5.5 weeks after the onset of symptoms. Notably, of the remaining 74 COVID-19 patients included in the cohort, 64 (62.8%) were positive for antibody at the time of enrollment, and 10 (9.8%) patients failed to mount a detectable antibody response by any of the assays tested during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal assessment of antibody response in African COVID-19 patients revealed heterogeneous responses. This underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation of seroassays before implementation. Factors associated with failure to seroconvert needs further research.

SerumCovid database: Description and preliminary analysis of serological COVID-19 diagnosis in healthcare workers.

Serological databases represent an important source of information to perceive COVID-19 impact on health professionals involved in combating the disease. This paper describes SerumCovid, a COVID-19 serological database focused on the diagnosis of health professionals, providing a preliminary analysis to contribute to the understanding of the antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2. The study population comprises 321 samples from 236 healthcare and frontline workers fighting COVID-19 in Vitória de Santo Antão, Brazil. Samples were collected from at least six days of symptoms to more than 100 days. The used immunoenzymatic assays were Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA. The most common gender in SerumCovid is female, while the most common age group is between 30 and 39 years old. However, no statistical differences were observed in either genders or age categories. The most reported symptoms were fatigue, headaches, and myalgia. Still, some subjects presented positive results for IgA after 130 days. Based on a temporal analysis, we have not identified general patterns as subjects presented high and low values of IgA and IgG with different evolution trends. Unexpectedly, for subjects with both serological tests, the outcome of IgA and IgG tests were the same (either positive or negative) for more than 80% of the samples. Therefore, SerumCovid helps better understand how COVID-19 affected healthcare and frontline workers, which increases knowledge about the infection and enables direct prevention actions.

Séroprévalence du SRAS-CoV-2 chez les travailleurs de la santé de 10 hôpitaux du Québec, au Canada: étude transversale.

CONTEXTE: La pandémie de COVID-19 a affecté de manière disproportionnée les travailleurs de la santé. Nous avons voulu mesurer la séroprévalence du SRAS-CoV-2 chez les travailleurs de la santé dans les hôpitaux du Québec, au Canada, après la première vague de la pandémie, afin d'explorer les facteurs associés à la SRAS-CoV-2-séropositivité. MÉTHODES: Entre le 6 juillet et le 24 septembre 2020, nous avons recruté des travailleurs de la santé de 10 hôpitaux, dont 8 d'une région où l'incidence de la COVID-19 était élevée (région de Montréal) et 2 de régions du Québec où l'incidence était faible. Les travailleurs de la santé admissibles étaient des médecins, des infirmières, des préposées aux bénéficiaires et des préposés à l'entretien ménager travaillant dans 4 types d'unité de soins (urgences, soins intensifs, unité hospitalière COVID-19 et unité hospitalière non-COVID-19). Les participants ont répondu à un questionnaire et subi un dépistage sérologique du SRAS-CoV-2. Nous avons identifié les facteurs ayant un lien indépendant avec une séroprévalence plus élevée. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 2056 travailleurs de la santé recrutés, 241 (11,7 %) se sont révélés SRAS-CoV-2-positifs. Parmi eux, 171 (71,0 %) avaient déjà reçu un diagnostic de COVID-19. La séroprévalence a varié d'un hôpital à l'autre, de 2,4 %­3,7 % dans les régions où l'incidence était faible, à 17,9 %­32,0 % dans les hôpitaux ayant connu des éclosions touchant 5 travailleurs de la santé ou plus. La séroprévalence plus élevée a été associée au fait de travailler dans un hôpital où des éclosions sont survenues (rapport de prévalence ajusté 4,16, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 2,63­6,57), au fait d'être infirmière ou auxiliaire (rapport de prévalence ajusté 1,34, IC à 95 % 1,03­1,74), préposée aux bénéficiaires (rapport de prévalence ajusté 1,49, IC à 95 % 1,12­1,97) et d'ethnicité noire ou hispanique (rapport de prévalence ajusté 1,41, IC à 95 % 1,13­1,76). La séroprévalence moindre a été associée au fait de travailler dans une unité de soins intensifs (rapport de prévalence ajusté 0,47, IC à 95 % 0,30­0,71) ou aux urgences (rapport de prévalence ajusté 0,61, IC à 95 % 0,39­0,98). INTERPRÉTATION: Les travailleurs de la santé des hôpitaux du Québec ont été exposés à un risque élevé d'infection par le SRAS-CoV-2, particulièrement lors des éclosions. Il faudra travailler à mieux comprendre la dynamique de la transmission du SRAS-CoV-2 dans les milieux de soins.

Evaluation of the analytical performance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody test kits distributed or developed in Japan.

Background: With the spread of COVID-19, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have been utilized. Herein we evaluated the analytical performance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody test kits using a new reference standard prepared from COVID-19 patient sera. Methods: Fifty-seven kits in total (16 immunochromatography types, 11 ELISA types and 30 types for automated analyzers) were examined. By measuring serially diluted reference standards, the maximum dilution factor showing a positive result and its precision were investigated. Results: The measured cut-off titers varied largely depending on the antibody kit; however, the variability was small, with the titers obtained by each kit being within twofold in most cases. Conclusion: The current results suggest that a suitable kit should be selected depending on the intended purpose.

Evaluation of the Performance of a Multiplexed Serological Assay in the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in a Predominantly Vaccinated Population.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies may be complicated by vaccination efforts. It is important to characterize the ability of serology methods to correctly distinguish prior infection from postvaccination seroreactivity. We report the performance of the Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) V-PLEX COVID-19 Coronavirus Panel 2 IgG assay. Using serum samples from a prospective cohort of paramedics, we calculated the performance of the V-PLEX nucleocapsid ("N") assay to classify prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, defined as a (i) history of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test or (ii) positive serology results using the Roche Elecsys total nucleocapsid anti-SARS-Cov-2 assay. We calculated sensitivity and specificity at the optimal threshold (defined by the highest Youden index). We compared subgroups based on vaccination status, and between models that excluded prior infections 3 to 12 months before sample collection. Of 1119 participants, 914 (81.7%) were vaccinated and 60 (5.4%) had evidence of a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection. Overall and within vaccinated and unvaccinated subgroups, the optimal thresholds were 828 AU/mL, 827 AU/mL, and 1324 AU/mL; with sensitivities of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.96), 0.95 (0.94 to 0.96), 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) and specificities of 0.88 (0.86 to 0.90), 0.87 (0.85 to 0.89), and 0.94 (0.89 to 0.98), respectively. N-assay specificity was significantly better in unvaccinated (versus vaccinated) individuals (P = 0.005). Overall optimal thresholds based on the AUC values were higher for samples from unvaccinated participants, especially when examining infections within the preceding 9 months (5855 versus 1704 AU/mL). Overall, V-PLEX nucleocapsid assay cutoff values were higher among unvaccinated individuals. Specificity was also significantly higher among unvaccinated individuals. Different thresholds were required to achieve optimal test performance, especially for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections within the preceding 9 months. IMPORTANCE Among a cohort of adult paramedics in Canada, we investigated the performance of nucleocapsid (N) antibody detection (measured with a V-PLEX assay) to identify previous COVID-19 infections and compared differences among vaccinated and unvaccinated. Our data indicate that vaccinated and unvaccinated groups require different thresholds to achieve optimal test performance, especially for detecting COVID-19 within the preceding 9 months. Overall, specificity was significantly higher among unvaccinated, compared to vaccinated individuals.

China's NMPA perspective on the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen test reagents.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread all over the world. In the process of emergency use authorization, the Center for Medical Device Evaluation of the China National Medical Products Administration issued 'Key Points of Technical Review for the Registration of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen/Antibody Detection Reagents' as the guidance of registration of antigen and antibody test reagents for the industry. In this document, clinical evaluation requirements of antigen detection reagents are elaborated. Based on the Key Points document and the authors' review practice, this article explains the evaluation methods and requirements of clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests, then analyzes the application scenarios and intended use of antigen detection reagents.

Implementation and Extended Evaluation of the Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Assay and Its Contribution to the United Kingdom's COVID-19 Public Health Response.

In March 2020, the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) (formerly Public Health England [PHE]) Porton Down, was tasked by the Department of Health and Social Care with setting up a national surveillance laboratory facility to study SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses and population-level sero-surveillance in response to the growing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. In the following 12 months, the laboratory tested more than 160,000 samples, facilitating a wide range of research and informing UKHSA, DHSC, and UK government policy. Here we describe the implementation and use of the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and provide an extended evaluation of its performance. We present a markedly improved overall sensitivity of 91.39% (≥14 days 92.74%, ≥21 days 93.59%) compared to our small-scale early study, and a specificity of 98.56%. In addition, we detail extended characteristics of the Euroimmun assay: intra- and interassay precision, correlation to neutralization, and assay linearity. IMPORTANCE Serology assays have been useful in determining those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in a wide range of research and serosurveillance projects. However, assays vary in their sensitivity at detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Here, we detail an extended evaluation and characterization of the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, one that has been widely used within the United Kingdom on over 160,000 samples to date.