scholarly journals Antibody seroprevalence and rate of asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2 in Austrian hospital personnel

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Leister ◽  
Elisabeth Ponocny-Seliger ◽  
Herwig Kollaritsch ◽  
Peter Dungel ◽  
Barbara Holzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Insurance ◽  
Neutralization Test ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Antibody Concentration ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Significant Drop ◽  
Rehabilitation Facilities ◽  
Time Point ◽  
Rapid Antibody

Abstract Background The aims of this study are to determine (i) SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive employees in Austrian trauma hospitals and rehabilitation facilities, (ii) number of active virus carriers (symptomatic and asymptomatic) during the study, (iii) antibody decline in seropositive subjects over a period of around 6 months, (iv) the usefulness of rapid antibody tests for outpatient screening. Method A total of 3301 employees in 11 Austrian trauma hospitals and rehabilitation facilities of the Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks (AUVA) participated in this open uncontrolled prospective cohort study. Rapid lateral flow tests, detecting a combination of IgM and IgM against SARS-CoV-2), two different types of CLIA (Diasorin, Roche), RT-PCR tests and serum neutralization tests (SNTs) were performed. The tests were conducted twice, with an interval of 42.4 ± 7.7 (Min = 30, Max = 64) days. Positive participants were re-tested with CLIA/SNT at a third time point after 188.0 ± 12.8 days. Results Only 27 out of 3301 participants (0.82%) had a positive antibody test at any time point during the study confirmed via neutralization test. Among positively tested participants in either test, 50.4% did not report any symptoms consistent with common manifestations of COVID-19 during the study period or within the preceding 6 weeks. In the group who tested positive during or prior to study inclusion the most common symptoms of an acute viral illness were rhinitis (21.9%), and loss of taste and olfactory sense (21.9%). Based on the neutralization test as the true condition, the rapid antibody test performed better on serum than whole blood as 84.6% instead of 65.4% could be detected correctly. Concerning both CLIA tests overall the Roche test detected 24 (sensitivity = 88.9%) and the Diasorin test 22 positive participants (sensitivity = 81.5%). In participants with a positive SNT result, a significant drop in neutralizing antibody titre from 31.8 ± 22.9 (Md = 32.0) at T1 to 26.1 ± 17.6 (Md = 21.3) at T2 to 21.4 ± 13.4 (Md = 16.0) at T3 (χ2 = 23.848, df = 2, p < 0.001) was observed (χ2 = 23.848, df = 2, p < 0.001)—with an average time of 42.4 ± 7.7 days between T1 and T2 and 146.9 ± 13.8 days between T2 and T3. Conclusions During the study period (May 11th–August 3rd) only 0.82% were tested positive for antibodies in our study cohort. The antibody concentration decreases significantly over time with 14.8% (4 out of 27) losing detectable antibodies.

scholarly journals Antibody seroprevalence and rate of asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2 in Austrian hospital personnel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Leister ◽  
Elisabeth Ponocny-Seliger ◽  
Herwig Kollaritsch ◽  
Peter Dungel ◽  
Barbara Holzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibody Test ◽  
World Health ◽  
Antibody Concentration ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Living Situation ◽  
Rehabilitation Facilities ◽  
Specific Igg ◽  
Antibody Tests ◽  
Time Point ◽  
Rapid Antibody

AbstractContextOn March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the current corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as a pandemic. The first laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 in Austria was announced on February 27, 2020. Since then, the incidence of infection followed an exponential increase until a complete lockdown in March 2020. Thereafter easing of restrictions was gradually introduced and until mid-August daily infections remained mostly below 5 per 100.000 population.ObjectivesThe aims of this study are to determine i) how many employees in Austrian trauma hospitals and rehabilitation facilities have virus specific IgG and IgM, and/or neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, ii) how many are active virus carriers (symptomatic and asymptomatic) during the study, iii) the antibody decline in seropositive subjects over a period of around six months, and iv) the utility of rapid antibody tests for outpatient screening.Study DesignOpen uncontrolled observational cross-sectional study.Setting/ParticipantsA total of 3301 employees in 11 Austrian trauma hospitals and rehabilitation facilities of the Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks (AUVA) participated in the study.Study Interventions and MeasuresRapid antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG and IgM antibodies, and RT-PCR tests based on oropharyngeal swab samples, as well as laboratory-based antibody tests using ELISA/PRNT were performed. The tests were conducted twice, with an interval of 42.4±7.7 (Min=30, Max=64) days. Additionally, participants filled out a questionnaire including questions related to personal health, traveling activities, living situation, as well as inquiries of symptoms and comorbidities. Antibody positive tested participants were re-tested with ELISA/PRNT tests at a third time point on average 188.0±12.8 days after their initial test.ResultsIn our study cohort, only 27 out of 3301 participants (0.81%) had a positive antibody test at any time point during the study confirmed via neutralization test. Among participants who had positive test results in either of the antibody tests, 50.4% did not report any symptoms consistent with common manifestations of COVID-19 during the study period or within the preceding six weeks. In the group who tested positive during or prior to study inclusion the most common symptoms of an acute viral illness were rhinitis (21.9%), and loss of taste and olfactory sense (21.9%).The rapid antibody test was generally more sensitive based on serum (sensitivity=86.6%) as compared to whole blood (sensitivity=65.4). Concerning both ELISA tests overall the Roche test detected 24 (sensitivity=88.9%) and the Diasorin test 22 positive participants (sensitivity=81.5%).In participants with a positive PRNT, a significant decrease in PRNT concentration from 31.8±22.9 (Md=32.0) at T1 to 26.1±17.6 (Md=21.3) at T2 to 21.4±13.4 (Md=16.0) at T3 (χ2=23.848, df=2, p<0.001) was observed (χ2=23.848, df=2, p<0.001) – with an average time of 42.4±7.7 days between T1 and T2 and 146.9±13.8 days between T2 and T3.ConclusionsDuring the study period (May 11th – December 21th) only 0.81% were tested positive for antibodies in our study cohort. The antibody concentration decreases significantly over time with 14.8% (4 out of 27) losing detectable antibodies.

scholarly journals Antibody Seroprevalence and Rate of Asymptomatic Infections With SARS-CoV-2 in Austrian Hospital Personnel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Leister ◽  
Elisabeth Ponocny-Seliger ◽  
Herwig Kollaritsch ◽  
Peter Dungel ◽  
Barbara Holzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibody Test ◽  
World Health ◽  
Antibody Concentration ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Living Situation ◽  
Rehabilitation Facilities ◽  
Specific Igg ◽  
Antibody Tests ◽  
Time Point ◽  
Rapid Antibody

Abstract Context: On March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced the current corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as a pandemic. The first laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 in Austria was announced on February 27, 2020. Since then, the incidence of infection followed an exponential increase until a complete lockdown in March 2020. Thereafter easing of restrictions was gradually introduced and until mid-August daily infections remained mostly below 5 per 100.000 population. Objectives: The aims of this study are to determine i) how many employees in Austrian trauma hospitals and rehabilitation facilities have virus specific IgG and IgM, and/or neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, ii) how many are active virus carriers (symptomatic and asymptomatic) during the study, iii) the antibody decline in seropositive subjects over a period of around six months, and iv) the utility of rapid antibody tests for outpatient screening.Study Design: Open uncontrolled observational cross-sectional study.Setting/Participants: A total of 3301 employees in 11 Austrian trauma hospitals and rehabilitation facilities of the Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risks (AUVA) participated in the study.Study Interventions and Measures: Rapid antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG and IgM antibodies, and RT-PCR tests based on oropharyngeal swab samples, as well as laboratory-based antibody tests using ELISA/PRNT were performed. The tests were conducted twice, with an interval of 42.4±7.7 (Min=30, Max=64) days. Additionally, participants filled out a questionnaire including questions related to personal health, traveling activities, living situation, as well as inquiries of symptoms and comorbidities. Antibody positive tested participants were re-tested with ELISA/PRNT tests at a third time point on average 188.0±12.8 days after their initial test.Results: In our study cohort, only 27 out of 3301 participants (0.81%) had a positive antibody test at any time point during the study confirmed via neutralization test. Among participants who had positive test results in either of the antibody tests, 50.4% did not report any symptoms consistent with common manifestations of COVID-19 during the study period or within the preceding six weeks. In the group who tested positive during or prior to study inclusion the most common symptoms of an acute viral illness were rhinitis (21.9%), and loss of taste and olfactory sense (21.9%).The rapid antibody test was generally more sensitive based on serum (sensitivity=86.6%) as compared to whole blood (sensitivity=65.4). Concerning both ELISA tests overall the Roche test detected 24 (sensitivity=88.9%) and the Diasorin test 22 positive participants (sensitivity=81.5%).In participants with a positive PRNT, a significant decrease in PRNT concentration from 31.8±22.9 (Md=32.0) at T1 to 26.1±17.6 (Md=21.3) at T2 to 21.4±13.4 (Md=16.0) at T3 (c2=23.848, df=2, p<0.001) was observed (c2=23.848, df=2, p<0.001) – with an average time of 42.4±7.7 days between T1 and T2 and 146.9±13.8 days between T2 and T3. Conclusions: During the study period (May 11th – December 21th) only 0.81% were tested positive for antibodies in our study cohort. The antibody concentration decreases significantly over time with 14.8% (4 out of 27) losing detectable antibodies.

scholarly journals Performance Evaluation of the BZ COVID-19 Neutralizing Antibody Test for the Culture-Free and Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 2193
Author(s):  
Bo Kyeung Jung ◽  
Jung Yoon ◽  
Joon-Yong Bae ◽  
Jeonghun Kim ◽  
Man-Seong Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neutralizing Antibodies ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Neutralization Test ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Lower Sensitivity ◽  
Control Line ◽  
Perfect Agreement ◽  
Strong Negative Correlation ◽  
Percent Inhibition

Rapid and accurate measurement of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) can aid in understanding the development of immunity against COVID-19. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 nAb detection test called the BZ COVID-19 nAb test BZ-nAb (BZ-nAb; BioZentech). Using the 90% plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT-90) as a reference, 104 serum specimens collected from COVID-19-positive and -negative patients were grouped into 40 PRNT-90-positive and 64 PRNT-90-negative specimens. The performance of the BZ-nAb was compared with that of the cPass surrogate virus neutralization test (cPass sVNT; Genscript). The BZ-nAb showed a sensitivity ranging from 92.5%–95.0% and specificity ranging from 96.9%–100%, whereas cPass sVNT showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.5%–100%) and specificity of 98.4% (95% CI, 91.6%–100%). The dilution factor obtained with PRNT-90 showed a stronger correlation with the percent inhibition of cPass sVNT (r = 0.8660, p < 0.001) compared with the test and control line ratio (T/C ratio) of the BZ-nAb (r = −0.7089, p < 0.001). An almost perfect agreement was seen between the BZ-nAb and cPass sVNT results, with a strong negative correlation between the BZ-nAb T/C ratio and cPass sVNT percent inhibition (r = −0.8022, p < 0.001). In conclusion, the diagnostic performance of the BZ-nAb was comparable to that of the cPass sVNT, although the BZ-nAb had a slightly lower sensitivity.

scholarly journals Delayed neutralizing antibody response in the acute phase correlates with severe progression of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitoshi Kawasuji ◽  
Yoshitomo Morinaga ◽  
Hideki Tani ◽  
Miyuki Kimura ◽  
Hiroshi Yamada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Neutralization Test ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
Pseudotyped Virus ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Neutralization Activity ◽  
Neutralizing Activity ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Moderate Disease ◽  
Activity Dynamics

AbstractAdaptive immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) dynamics remain largely unknown. The neutralizing antibody (NAb) levels in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are helpful for understanding the pathology. Using SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped virus, serum sample neutralization values in symptomatic COVID-19 patients were measured using the chemiluminescence reduction neutralization test (CRNT). At least two sequential serum samples collected during hospitalization were analyzed to assess NAbs neutralizing activity dynamics at different time points. Of the 11 patients, four (36.4%), six (54.5%), and one (9.1%) had moderate, severe, and critical disease, respectively. Fifty percent neutralization (N50%-CRNT) was observed upon admission in 90.9% (10/11); all patients acquired neutralizing activity 2–12 days after onset. In patients with moderate disease, neutralization was observed at earliest within two days after symptom onset. In patients with severe-to-critical disease, neutralization activity increased, plateauing 9–16 days after onset. Neutralization activity on admission was significantly higher in patients with moderate disease than in patients with severe-to-critical disease (relative % of infectivity, 6.4% vs. 41.1%; P = .011). Neutralization activity on admission inversely correlated with disease severity. The rapid NAb response may play a crucial role in preventing the progression of COVID-19.

scholarly journals Evaluation of six commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays detecting different antibodies for clinical testing and serosurveillance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suellen Nicholson ◽  
Theo Karapanagiotidis ◽  
Arseniy Khvorov ◽  
Celia Douros ◽  
Francesca Mordant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Culture ◽  
Neutralization Test ◽  
Serological Test ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
Neutralization Assay ◽  
Virus Neutralization Test ◽  
Virus Neutralization ◽  
Binding Assays ◽  
Humoral Immune ◽  
A Cell

Abstract Background Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 complements nucleic acid tests for patient diagnosis and enables monitoring of population susceptibility to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response. It is important to understand the reliability of assays with different antigen or antibody targets to detect humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to understand how antibody (Ab) binding assays compare to those detecting neutralizing antibody (nAb), particularly as we move into the era of vaccines. Methods We evaluated the performance of six commercially available Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs), including a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), for detection of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins (IgA, IgM, IgG), total or nAb. A result subset was compared to a cell culture-based microneutralisation (MN) assay. We tested sera from patients with prior RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, pre-pandemic sera and potential cross-reactive sera from patients with other non-COVID-19 acute infections. Results For sera collected &gt; 14 days post-symptom onset, the assay achieving the highest sensitivity was the Wantai total Ab at 100% (95% confidence interval: 94.6-100) followed by 93.1% for Euroimmun NCP-IgG, 93.1% for GenScript sVNT, 90.3% for Euroimmun S1-IgG, 88.9% for Euroimmun S1-IgA and 83.3% for Wantai IgM. Specificity for the best performing assay was 99.5% for the Wantai total Ab and for the lowest performing assay was 97.1% for sVNT (as per IFU). The Wantai Total Ab had the best agreement with MN at 98% followed by Euroimmun S1-IgA, Euro NCP-IgG and sVNT (as per IFU) with (97%, 97% and 95% respectively) and Wantai IgM having the poorest agreement at 93%. Conclusion Performance characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 serology assays detecting different antibody types are consistent with those found in previously published reports. Evaluation of the surrogate virus neutralization test in comparison to the Ab binding assays and a cell culture-based neutralization assay showed good result correlation between all assays. However correlation between the cell-based neutralization test and some assays detecting Ab’s not specifically involved in neutralization was higher than with the sVNT. This study demonstrates the reliability of different assays to detect the humoral immune response following SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be used to optimise serological test algorithms for assessing antibody responses post SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination.

scholarly journals Varicella-zoster plaque assay and plaque reduction neutralization test by the immunoperoxidase technique

1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 437-442
Author(s):  
G Gerna ◽  
R W Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Neutralization Test ◽  
Plaque Assay ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
Immunoperoxidase Technique ◽  
Serum Samples ◽  
Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test ◽  
Varicella Zoster ◽  
Convalescent Phase ◽  
Antibody Titers ◽  
Indirect Immunoperoxidase

A new plaque assay for the quantitation of varicella-zoster virus and a plaque reduction neutralization test for the determination of neutralizing antibody titer have been developed using the indirect immunoperoxidase technique. As compared with the classical plaque assay using a solid overlay, the test gives earlier results since plaque counting can be performed on day 3 after the inoculation of cell cultures. In six patients with zoster infection, neutralizing antibody titers ranged from 1:20 to 1:40 before the onset of infection and reached high levels (1:320 to 1:5,120) during the convalescent phase of the disease. Complement-fixing (CF) titers were all negative (less than 1:8) in prezoster serum samples from the same patients and ranged from 1:128 to 1:2,048 in the convalescent-phase sera. In the two cases in which late serum samples were available, neutralizing antibody titers matched the preillness levels, whereas CF titers dropped to undetectable levels. Neither neutralizing nor CF antibody was detected in two sera from individuals with no history of varicella-zoster infection. No differences in virus titers or neutralizing antibody titers were observed between the immunoperoxidase and the classical plaque assays. The appropriate characterization of reagent specificity is required before routine application of the test.

scholarly journals Assessment of the Field Utility of a Rapid Point-of-Care Test for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Household Cohort

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehal Churiwal ◽  
Kelly D. Lin ◽  
Salman Khan ◽  
Srijana Chhetri ◽  
Meredith S. Muller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Natural Infection ◽  
Field Performance ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
Asymptomatic Infection ◽  
Point Of Care Test ◽  
Antibody Tests ◽  
Rapid Antibody

Point-of-care (POC) tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies offer quick assessment of serostatus after natural infection or vaccination. We compared the field performance of the BioMedomics COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Antibody Test against an ELISA in 303 participants enrolled in a SARS-CoV-2 household cohort study. The rapid antibody test was easily implemented with consistent interpretation across 14 users in a variety of field settings. Compared with ELISA, detection of seroconversion lagged by 5 to 10 days. However, it retained a sensitivity of 90% (160/177, 95% confidence interval [CI] 85–94%) and specificity of 100% (43/43, 95% CI 92–100%) for those tested 3 to 5 weeks after symptom onset. Sensitivity was diminished among those with asymptomatic infection (74% [14/19], 95% CI 49–91%) and early in infection (45% [29/64], 95% CI 33–58%). When used appropriately, rapid antibody tests offer a convenient way to detect symptomatic infections during convalescence.

scholarly journals Survey of fox trappers in northern Alaska for rabies antibody

1994 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. H. Follmann ◽  
D. G. Ritter ◽  
M. Beller
Keyword(s):  
Rabies Virus ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
World Health ◽  
Antibody Concentration ◽  
Alopex Lagopus ◽  
Arctic Foxes ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Antibody Levels ◽  
Northern Alaska ◽  
Rabies Vaccination

SUMMARYThe purpose of this research was to determine whether trappers in northern Alaska acquired immunity to rabies virus from non-bite exposures while trapping and skinning arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus). In coastal Alaska recurring epizootics presumably provide trappers ample opportunity for contact with rabid animals. Serum neutralization analyses of blood samples collected from 26 individuals were conducted. All but three had negative rabies neutralizing antibody levels (< 0·05 I.U./ml). Two of these had previously received rabies vaccine but one individual who had trapped for about 47 years with an estimated harvest of over 3000 foxes and who had never received pre- or post-exposure rabies vaccination had a rabies serum neutralizing antibody concentration of 2·30 I.U./ml. This represents the first report of an unvaccinated person acquiring rabies virus antibody with a titre above the 0·5 I.U./ml level considered acceptable by the World Health Organization.

Meta-analysis of immunogenicity and safety of human rabies vaccination under Zagreb and Essen regimens

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Li ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
Hongbin Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neutralizing Antibody ◽  
Human Rabies ◽  
Antibody Concentration ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Risk Ratios ◽  
Rabies Vaccination

Aim: To assess the immunogenicity and safety of rabies vaccination under the Zagreb and Essen regimens by performing a meta-analysis. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. Risk ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs were used to calculate estimates. Results: A total of 18 studies were included. Rabies virus neutralizing antibody concentration was comparable between the two regimens at D7 and 14. No significant differences were observed in seroconversion rates from D14 and 42. Incidence of fever was higher in Zagreb group (risk ratio: 1.55 [1.37–1.76]); but no significant differences were present for other common adverse events. Conclusion: Rabies vaccination under the Zagreb regimen was noninferior to the Essen regimen in immunogenicity and had an acceptable safety profile.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document