How much should we sequence? An analysis of the Swiss SARS-CoV-2 surveillance effort.

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, many countries directed substantial resources toward genomic surveillance to detect and track viral variants. There is a debate over how much sequencing effort is necessary in national surveillance programs for SARS-CoV-2 and future pandemic threats. We aimed to investigate the effect of reduced sequencing on surveillance outcomes in a large genomic data set from Switzerland, comprising more than 143k sequences. We employed a uniform downsampling strategy using 100 iterations each to investigate the effects of fewer available sequences on the surveillance outcomes: (i) first detection of variants of concern (VOCs), (ii) speed of introduction of VOCs, (iii) diversity of lineages, (iv) first cluster detection of VOCs, (v) density of active clusters, and (vi) geographic spread of clusters. The impact of downsampling on VOC detection is disparate for the three VOC lineages, but many outcomes including introduction and cluster detection could be recapitulated even with only 35% of the original sequencing effort. The effect on the observed speed of introduction and first detection of clusters was more sensitive to reduced sequencing effort for some VOCs, in particular Omicron and Delta, respectively. A genomic surveillance program needs a balance between societal benefits and costs. While the overall national dynamics of the pandemic could be recapitulated by a reduced sequencing effort, the effect is strongly lineage-dependent-something that is unknown at the time of sequencing-and comes at the cost of accuracy, in particular for tracking the emergence of potential VOCs.IMPORTANCESwitzerland had one of the most comprehensive genomic surveillance systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such programs need to strike a balance between societal benefits and program costs. Our study aims to answer the question: How would surveillance outcomes have changed had we sequenced less? We find that some outcomes but also certain viral lineages are more affected than others by sequencing less. However, sequencing to around a third of the original effort still captured many important outcomes for the variants of concern such as their first detection but affected more strongly other measures like the detection of first transmission clusters for some lineages. Our work highlights the importance of setting predefined targets for a national genomic surveillance program based on which sequencing effort should be determined. Additionally, the use of a centralized surveillance platform facilitates aggregating data on a national level for rapid public health responses as well as post-analyses.

Evaluation of sixteen ELISA SARS-CoV-2 serological tests.

BACKGROUND: In response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple companies marketed serological tests. Rigorous, independent and comparative performances of these assays on defined clinical specimens are needed. METHODS: In a first preliminary phase, we investigated 16 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological ELISA using a panel of 180 sera, comprising 97 sera from patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 83 negative sera sampled before November 1, 2019. In a second phase and to complete the evaluation on the full panel (100 positive and 300 negative), tests that passed pre-defined exclusion criteria of 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity were further evaluated on 220 additional sera chosen to assess possible cross-reactivity with other human viral infections. RESULTS: Among the 16 tests evaluated in the preliminary phase, two were excluded due to insufficient sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and one was excluded due to poor specificity. Of the 13 tests evaluated using the full panel comprised of a diverse pool of sera including those reactive against known respiratory viruses, no systematic cross-reactivity was observed. However, heterogeneities across tests were found. Consistent with kinetics of antibody expression, maximal sensitivity was found two weeks post-symptom onset. CONCLUSION: In this independent evaluation, we compared the performance of 16 SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using well-characterized sera and found 13 tests with more than 90% sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and 97% specificity across a diverse range of negative samples.