ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the diagnostic and analytical performances of the Access anti-HBc Total assay on the DxI 9000 Access Immunoassay System (Beckman Coulter Inc.). The multicenter study involved both prospective and retrospective sample collection from non-selected blood donors, hospitalized patients, or presumed anti-HBc Total positive individuals. Fresh/previously-frozen samples were tested with the Access and comparator assays to determine concordance; discrepant samples were tested with a second CE-marked assay. Among the 5983 non-selected fresh blood donor samples deemed anti-HBc Total negative, clinical specificity of the Access assay was 99.58% (95%CI: 99.38-99.72%). Clinical specificity was 99.27% (97.37-99.80%) among 273 anti-HBc Total negative hospitalized patient samples. Clinical sensitivity on 450 anti-HBc Total positive samples was 99.78% (98.75-99.96%). Evaluation in seroconversion panels revealed an average 1.4-day earlier detection versus a comparator assay. The Access assay demonstrated excellent clinical and analytical performances comparable to existing CE-marked anti-HBc Total assays. NCT04904835.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a multi-system infection with emerging evidence-based antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapies to improve disease prognosis. However, a subset of patients with COVID-19 signs and symptoms have repeatedly negative RT-PCR tests, leading to treatment hesitancy. We used comparative serology early in the COVID-19 pandemic when background seroprevalence was low to estimate the likelihood of COVID-19 infection among RT-PCR negative patients with clinical signs and/or symptoms compatible with COVID-19. METHODS: Between April and October 2020, we conducted serologic testing of patients with (i) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 who were repeatedly negative by RT-PCR ('Probables'; N = 20), (ii) signs and symptoms of COVID-19 but with a potential alternative diagnosis ('Suspects'; N = 15), (iii) no signs and symptoms of COVID-19 ('Non-suspects'; N = 43), (iv) RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (N = 40), and (v) pre-pandemic samples (N = 55). RESULTS: Probables had similar seropositivity and levels of IgG and IgM antibodies as propensity-score matched RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients (60.0% vs 80.0% for IgG, p-value = 0.13; 50.0% vs 72.5% for IgM, p-value = 0.10), but multi-fold higher seropositivity rates than Suspects and matched Non-suspects (60.0% vs 13.3% and 11.6% for IgG; 50.0% vs 0% and 4.7% for IgM respectively; p-values < 0.01). However, Probables were half as likely to receive COVID-19 treatment than the RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with similar disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate a high likelihood of acute COVID-19 among RT-PCR negative with typical signs/symptoms, but a common omission of COVID-19 therapies among these patients. Clinically diagnosed COVID-19, independent of RT-PCR positivity, thus has a potential vital role in guiding treatment decisions.
