Validation and performance comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.

Serology testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is increasingly being used during the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although its clinical and epidemiologic utilities are still debatable. Characterizing these assays provides scientific basis to best use them. The current study assessed one chemiluminescent assay (Abbott COVID-2 IgG) and two lateral flow assays (STANDARD Q [SQ] IgM/IgG Duo and Wondfo total antibody test) using 113 blood samples from 71 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients, 119 samples with potential cross-reactions, and 1068 negative controls including 942 pre-pandemic samples. SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies became detectable 3-4 days post-symptom onset using SQ IgM test and IgG antibodies were first detected 5-6 days post-onset using SQ IgG. Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total were able to detect antibodies 7 to 8 days post-onset. After 14 days post-symptom onset, the SQ IgG, Abbott IgG and Wondfo Total tests were able to detect antibodies from 100% of the PCR-confirmed patients in this series; 87.5% sensitivity for SQ IgM. Overall agreement was 88.5% between SQ IgM/IgG and Wondfo Total and 94.6% between SQ IgG and Abbott IgG. No cross-reaction due to recent sera with three of the endemic coronaviruses was observed. Viral hepatitis and autoimmune samples were the main source of limited cross-reactions. The specificities were 100% for SQ IgG and Wondfo Total, 99.62% for Abbott IgG, and 98.87% for SQ IgM. These findings demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of appropriately validated SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays with implications for clinical use and epidemiological seroprevalence studies.

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): A General Review.

The rampant COVID-19 pandemic has strained the testing capabilities of healthcare centers across the country. Several nucleic acid and serologic assays are available or currently being developed to meet the growing demand for large-scale testing. This review summarizes the developments of commonly used testing methods and their strategic use in clinical diagnosis and epidemiologic surveillance. This review will cover the basic virology of SARS-CoV-2, nucleic acid amplification testing, serology, antigen testing, as well as newer testing methods such as CRISPR-based assays.

Evaluation of BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total With Automated Rapid Plasma Reagin: Experience From a Tertiary Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Treponema-specific assays are widely adopted in the first step of the reverse algorithm of serologic syphilis screening. The new BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test is designed to perform the first 2 steps of the algorithm simultaneously. However, limited data regarding the BioPlex Syphilis Total and RPR in clinical practice exist. METHODS: A total of 293 random samples at a tertiary medical center were tested by BioPlex Syphilis Total and RPR, BioPlex Syphilis IgG, Architect Syphilis TP, and BD Macro-Vue RPR card. Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA) assay and clinical chart review were used to resolve discrepancies. Comparisons were performed among treponemal-specific assays and between 2 RPR tests. RESULTS: Good overall agreements (>91%) were achieved between BioPlex Syphilis Total, BioPlex Syphilis IgG, and Architect Syphilis TP. Overall agreement between BioPlex RPR and BD RPR was 86.8% with positive percent agreement of 66.7% and negative percent agreement of 96.3%. There were 37 discordant samples including 30 with BD RPR+/BioPlex RPR- and 7 with BD RPR-/BioPlex RPR+. Negative BioPlex RPR results were observed in samples with reactive BD RPR: 10 (91%) of 11 for BD RPR 1:1, 13 (65%) of 20 for BD RPR 1:2, 6 (35%) of 17 for BD RPR 1:4, and 1 (7%) of 14 for BD RPR 1:8. The discordant samples were predominantly from patients with high-risk of syphilis reinfection and included 9 patients with an early reinfection. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that BioPlex Syphilis Total and Architect Syphilis TP performed similarly. The BioPlex RPR missed a small number of early syphilis reinfections, and its implementation should depend on the patient population that the laboratory serves.