ABSTRACT
ObjectivesSaliva sampling could serve as an alternative non-invasive sample for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while rapid antigen testing (RAT) might help to mitigate the shortage of reagents sporadically encountered with RT-PCR. Thus, in the RESTART study we compared antigen and RT-PCR testing methods on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and salivary samples. MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study among COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 10th December 2020 and 1st February 2021. Paired saliva and NP samples were investigated by RT-PCR (Cobas 6800, Roche-Switzerland) and by two rapid antigen tests: One Step Immunoassay Exdia(R) COVID-19 Ag (Precision Biosensor, Korea) and Standard Q(R) COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche-Switzerland). ResultsA total of 58 paired NP-saliva specimens were collected. Thirty-two of 58 (55%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit and the median duration of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 5-19). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivity of 98% and 69% respectively whereas the specificity of these RT-PCRs assays were of 100%. NP RAT exhibited much lower diagnostic performances with sensitivities of 35% and 41% for the Standard Q(R) and Exdia(R) assays respectively, when a wet-swab approach was used (i.e. when the swab was diluted in the viral transport medium (VTM) before testing). The sensitivity of the dry-swab approach was slightly better (47%). These antigen tests exhibited very low sensitivity (4 and 8%) when applied to salivary swabs. ConclusionsNasopharyngeal RT-PCR is the most accurate test for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients. RT-PCR on salivary samples may be used when nasopharyngeal swabs are contraindicated. RAT are not appropriate for hospitalized patients.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWhile facing a second wave in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in November 2020 the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) authorized the use of rapid antigen tests (RATs) in addition to the gold-standard reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). MethodsWe implemented the use of RAT in the emergency ward of our university hospital for rapid patients triaging and compared performances of four different antigen tests. All results were compared to SARS-CoV-2 specific RT-PCR (reference standard). ResultsTriaging patients using RAT in association with RT-PCR allowed us to isolate promptly positive patients and to save resources, in a context of rapid RT-PCR reagents shortage. Among 532 patients with valid results, overall sensitivities were 48.3% for One Step Exdia and 41.2% for Standard Q(R), Panbio-and BD Veritor. All four antigen tests exhibited specificity above 99%. Sensitivity increased up to 74.6%, 66.2%, 66.2% and 64.8% for One Step Exdia, Standard Q, Panbio, and BD Veritor respectively, when considering viral loads above 105copies/ml, up to 100%, 97.8%, 96.6% and 95.6% for viral loads above 106 copies/ml and 100% (for all tests) when considering viral loads above 107 copies/ml. Sensitivity was significantly higher for patients presenting with symptoms onset within 4 days (74.3%, 69.2%, 69.2% and 64%, respectively) versus patients with evolution of symptoms for more than 4 days (36.8%, 21.1%, 21.1% and 23.7%, respectively). Sensitivities of all RAT assays were of only 33% among hospitalized patients without COVID-19 symptoms. ConclusionRAT might represent a useful epidemiological resource in selected clinical settings as a complementary tool to the molecular tests for rapid patients triaging, but the lower sensitivity compared to RT-PCR, especially in late presenters and subjects without COVID-19 symptoms, must be taken into account in order to correctly use RAT for triaging.
ABSTRACT
We have determined SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in a cohort of 96 individuals with acute infection and in 578 individuals enrolled in a seroprevalence population study in Switzerland including three groups, i.e. subjects with previous RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections (n=90), positive patient contacts (n=177) and random selected subjects (n=311). SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses specific to the Spike (S), in the monomeric and native trimeric forms, and/or the nucleocapsid (N) proteins were equally sensitive in the acute infection phase. Interestingly, as compared to anti-S antibody responses, those against the N protein appear to wane in the post-infection and substantially underestimated the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the groups of patient positive contacts, i.e. 10.9 to 32.2% reduction and in the random selected general population, i.e. up to 45% reduction. The overall reduction in seroprevalence targeting only anti-N IgG antibodies for the total cohort ranged from 9.4 to 31%. Of note, the use of the S protein in its native trimer form was more sensitive as compared to monomeric S proteins. These results indicate that the assessment of anti-S IgG antibody responses against the native trimeric S protein should be implemented to estimate SARS-CoV-2 infections in population-based seroprevalence studies.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThese last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests. MethodsIn a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other virus. ResultsIn the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, four had a sensitivity and specificity above 90% and 98% respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no tests showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response, and that anti-nucleocapside (anti-N) antibodies appeared earlier than the anti-spike (anti-S) proteins. ConclusionsThe identified SARS-CoV-2 serology tests may be used for the diagnostic of CoviD-19 for negative RT-PCR patients presenting severe to mild suggestive symptoms or particular clinical presentation. Detection of both anti-N and anti-S could be complementary to increase the sensitivity of the analysis.
ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 detection is mainly performed by RT-PCR but recently serological tests were made available. A first one month follow-up of the SARS-CoV-2 serology records was performed in our laboratory to precise the diversity and proportion of the SARS-CoV-2 serology test indications and to identify new valid indications (meningoencephalitis, vasculitis, ...)
