Performance of a flow cytometry-based immunoassay for detection of antibodies binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

The performance of a laboratory-developed IgG/IgA flow cytometry-based immunoassay (FCI) using Jurkat T cells stably expressing full-length native S protein was compared against Elecsys electrochemiluminiscent (ECLIA) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA), and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG chemiluminiscent assay (CLIA) (Diasorin S.p.a, Saluggia, IT) for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. A total of 225 serum/plasma specimens from 120 acute or convalescent COVID-19 individuals were included. Overall, IgG/IgA-FCI yielded the highest number of positives (n = 179), followed by IgA-FCI (n = 177), Roche ECLIA (n = 175), IgG-FCI (n = 172) and Diasorin CLIA (n = 154). For sera collected early after the onset of symptoms (within 15 days) IgG/IgA-FCI also returned the highest number of positive results (52/72; 72.2%). Positive percent agreement between FCI and compared immunoassays was highest for Roche ECLIA, ranging from 96.1 (IgG/IgA-FCI) to 97.7% (IgG-FCI), whereas negative percent agreement was higher between FCI and Diasosin CLIA, regardless of antibody isotype. The data suggest that FCI may outperform Roche ECLIA and Diasorin CLIA in terms of clinical sensitivity for serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Analytic sensitivity of the Abbott BinaxNOW lateral flow immunochromatographic assay for the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has motivated a re-evaluation of the test characteristics for lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIAs), commonly referred to as rapid antigen tests. To address this need, we evaluated the analytic sensitivity of one of the most widely used LFIAs in the US market, the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag At-Home Card using 32 samples of Omicron and 30 samples of the Delta variant. Samples were chosen to intentionally over-represent the range of viral loads where differences are most likely to appear. We found no changes in the analytic sensitivity of the BinaxNOW assay by variant even after controlling for variation in cycle threshold values in the two populations. Similar to prior studies, the sensitivity of the assay is highly dependent on the amount of virus present in the sample. While the analytic sensitivity of the BinaxNOW LFIA remains intact versus the Omicron variant, its clinical sensitivity is influenced by the interaction between viral replication, the dynamics of tissue tropism and the timing of sampling. Further research is necessary to optimally adapt current testing strategies to robustly detect early infection by the Omicron variant to prevent transmission.

Validation of a Saliva-Based Test for the Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background. Since the beginning of the pandemic, clinicians and researchers have been searching for alternative tests to improve the screening and diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Currently, the gold standard for virus identification is the nasopharyngeal (NP) swab. Saliva samples, however, offer clear, practical, and logistical advantages but due to a lack of collection, transport, and storage solutions, high-throughput saliva-based laboratory tests are difficult to scale up as a screening or diagnostic tool. With this study, we aimed to validate an intralaboratory molecular detection method for SARS-CoV-2 on saliva samples collected in a new storage saline solution, comparing the results to NP swabs to determine the difference in sensitivity between the two tests. Methods. In this study, 156 patients (cases) and 1005 asymptomatic subjects (controls) were enrolled and tested simultaneously for the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome by RT-PCR on both NP swab and saliva samples. Saliva samples were collected in a preservative and inhibiting saline solution (Biofarma Srl). Internal method validation was performed to standardize the entire workflow for saliva samples. Results. The identification of SARS-CoV-2 conducted on saliva samples showed a clinical sensitivity of 95.1% and specificity of 97.8% compared to NP swabs. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 81% while the negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.5%. Test concordance was 97.6% (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.86 ; 95% CI 0.81-0.91). The LoD of the test was 5 viral copies for both samples. Conclusions. RT-PCR assays conducted on a stored saliva sample achieved similar performance to those on NP swabs, and this may provide a very effective tool for population screening and diagnosis. Collection of saliva in a stabilizing solution makes the test more convenient and widely available; furthermore, the denaturing properties of the solution reduce the infective risks belonging to sample manipulation.

Clinical Sensitivity, Specificity and Epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Testing Using the Biozek COVID-19 Test

Background: Clinical validation using the Biozek COVID-19 test including sensitivity and specificity and associated patient-reported symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Methods: 316 sera were analyzed including 47 hospitalized cases, 50 mild cases and 219 negative controls. Results were read visually by two technicians and in case of discrepancy by a third. Models were created between independent variables and IgG seropositivity using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: Sensitivity of both IgM and IgG together for hospitalized patients at all time periods was 68.1% (32/47) and 90.0% (27/30) after 10 days or more. From mild/asymptomatic cases the combined IgM and IgG sensitivity was 92.0% (46/50) and 91.8% (45/49) after 10 days or more. In the group of non-COVID-19 cases, the overall specificity was 99.1% (217/219). For IgG alone, the specificity was 99.5% (218/219). In the multivariable analysis loss of smell remained the strongest associated variable with an odds ratio (95%CI): 6.82 (5.61–8.31), p-value < 0.001. Our final prediction model yielded a ROC-AUC of 0.77 (0.74–0.81) showing acceptable discrimination. Conclusions: The Biozek COVID-19 test showed high specificity and good sensitivity 10 days after the first sickness day. Solely IgM positive tests must be interpreted with caution and preferably excluded. In order to capture most symptomatic COVID-19 cases, loss of smell should be included within symptomatic screening policies.

Highly Sensitive and Specific SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assay Using a Magnetic Modulation Biosensing System

Sensitive serological assays are needed to provide valuable information about acute and past viral infections. For example, detection of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG antibodies could serve as the basis for an “immunity passport” that would enable individuals to travel internationally. Here, utilizing a novel Magnetic Modulation Biosensing (MMB) system and the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, we demonstrate a highly sensitive and specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG serological assay. Using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2-positive and healthy patients’ samples, and vaccinees’ samples, we compare the MMB-based SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay’s analytical and clinical sensitivities to those of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Compared with ELISA, the MMB-based assay has an ~6-fold lower limit of detection (129 ng/L vs. 817 ng/L), and it detects an increase in the IgG concentration much earlier after vaccination. Using 85 RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2-positive samples and 79 -negative samples, the MMB-based assay demonstrated similar clinical specificity (98% vs. 99%) and sensitivity (93% vs. 92%) to the ELISA test, but with a much faster turnaround time (45 min vs. 245 min). The high analytical and clinical sensitivity, short turnaround time, and simplicity of the MMB-based assay makes it a preferred method for antibody detection.

Analytical sensitivity of seven SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid tests for Omicron variant

The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) requires investigation of a potential impact on diagnostic performance, especially on Antigen-detecting rapid antigenic tests (Ag-RDT). Although anecdotal reports have been circulating that Omicron is in principle detected by several Ag-RDTs, no published data are a yet available for the newly emerged Omicron variant. Here, we have performed an analytical sensitivity testing with cultured virus in seven Ag-RDTs for their sensitivity to Omicron compared to data earlier obtained on VOCs Alpha, Beta Gamma and Delta and a pre-VOC isolate of SARS-CoV-2. Overall, we have found a tendency towards lower sensitivity for Omicron compared to pre-VOC SARS-CoV-2 and the other VOCs across tests. Importantly, while analytical testing with cultured virus may be a proxy for clinical sensitivity, is not a replacement for clinical evaluations which are urgently needed for Ag-RDT performance in Omicron-infected individuals.

Assessment of twenty-two SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests against SARS-CoV-2: A laboratory evaluation study

Background Rapid antigen testing is widely used as a way of scaling up population-level testing. To better inform antigen test deployment in Australia, we evaluated 22 commercially available antigen tests, including an assessment of culture infectivity. Methods Analytical sensitivity was evaluated against SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta), reported as TCID50/mL, cycle threshold (Ct) value and viral load (RNA copies/mL). Specificity was assessed against non-SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Clinical sensitivity and correlation with cell culture infectivity was assessed using the Abbott PanBio™ COVID-19 Ag test. Results Nineteen kits consistently detected SARS-CoV-2 antigen equivalent to 1.3x10^6 copies/mL (5.8x10^3 TCID50/mL). Specificity for all kits was 100%. Compared to RT-PCR the Abbott PanBio™ COVID-19 Ag test was 52.6% (95% CI, 41.6% to 63.3%) sensitive, with a 50% detection probability for infectious cell culture at 5.9 log10 RNA copies/mL (95% CI, 5.3 to 6.5 log10 copies/mL). Antigen test sensitivity was 97.6% (95% CI, 86.3% to 100.0%) compared to positive infectious in cell culture. Conclusions Antigen test positivity correlated with positive viral culture, suggesting antigen test results may determine SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk. Sensitivity varied considerably between test kits and highlights the need for ongoing systematic post-market evaluation, providing valuable information to help guide antigen test selection and deployment.

A prospective nationwide observational study of agreement of antigen tests on oral pharyngeal swabs or less invasive testing with RT-qPCR, for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in adults: Protocol description (Preprint)

BACKGROUND The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented level of world-wide testing for epidemiologic and diagnostic purposes, and due to the extreme need for tests, the gold standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) testing capacity has been unable to meet the overall global testing demand. Consequently, although current literature has shown the sensitivity of rapid antigen tests (RATs) to be inferior to RT-qPCR, RATs have been implemented on a large scale without solid data on performance. OBJECTIVE This study will compare analytical and clinical sensitivities and specificities of 50 lateral flow or laboratory based RATs and three Strand Invasion Based Amplification (SIBA)-rt-PCR tests from 30 manufacturers to RT-qPCR on samples obtained from the deep oropharynx. In addition, the study will compare sensitivities and specificities of the included RATs as well as RT-qPCR on clinical samples obtained from the deep oropharynx, anterior nasal cavity, saliva, deep nasopharynx and expired air to RT-qPCR from deep oropharyngeal samples. METHODS In the prospective part of the study, 200 individuals found SARS-CoV-2 positive and 200 individuals found SARS-CoV-2 negative by routine RT-qPCR testing will be re-tested with each RAT applying RT-qPCR as the reference method. In the retrospective part of the study, 304 deep oropharyngeal cavity swabs divided into four groups based on RT-qPCR Cq levels will be tested by each RAT. RESULTS The results will be reported in several manuscripts with different aims. The first manuscript will report retrospective (analytical sensitivity, overall and stratified into different Cq range groups) and prospective (clinical sensitivity) data for RATs with RT-qPCR results as the reference method. The second manuscript will report results for RAT based on anatomical sampling location. The third manuscript will compare different anatomical sampling locations by RT-qPCR testing. The fourth manuscript will focus on RATs that rely on central laboratory testing. Test from four different manufactures will be compared for analytical performance data on retrospective deep oropharyngeal swab samples. The fifth manuscript will report the results of four RATs applied both as professional use and as self-test. The last manuscript will report the results from two breath tests participating in the study. Comparison of sensitivity and specificity between RATs will be done using McNemar for paired samples and chi-squared test for unpaired samples. Comparison of PPV and NPV between RATs will be done by bootstrap test. 95 % confidence intervals for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value are calculated as bootstrap confidence intervals CONCLUSIONS The study will compare the sensitivities of a large number of RATs for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR and will address whether lateral flow based RATs test differ significantly from laboratory based RATS. The anatomical test location for both RAT and RT-qPCR will be compared. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04913116

SENSITIVITY OF THREE THYROTROPIN RECEPTOR ANTIBODY ASSAYS IN THYROID-ASSOCIATED ORBITOPATHY

Background: Thyrotropin receptor autoantibodies (TSH-R-Ab) are indispensable biomarkers in the laboratory assessment of thyroid-associated orbitopathy (TAO). Clinical sensitivity of three different assays for TSH-R-Ab determination was evaluated in patients with TAO. Methods: 87 consecutive TAO patients were enrolled and their serum samples analyzed in parallel with three assays. An ECLIA competitive binding and a chemiluminescent bridge immunoassay were used to measure total and binding TSH-R-Ab concentration, while their functional activity was determined using a stimulatory TSH-R-Ab (TSAb) cell-based bioassay. Results: Compared to the two binding assays (ECLIA p<0.001, bridge p=0.003), the TSAb bioassay was more sensitive pertaining to the positive detection of TSH-R-Ab in TAO patients. No difference (p=0.057) was noted between the ECLIA and bridge assays regarding sensitivity rate. All patients with active and/or moderate-to-severe TAO tested positive in the TSAb bioassay (100% and 100%, respectively), while the positivity rates for bridge and ECLIA binding assays were 89.7% and 82.1% for active TAO, and 90.2% and 86.3% for severe TAO, respectively. Negative predictive values of the bioassay, bridge, and ECLIA assays were 100%, 75%, and 71%, respectively for active TAO, and 100%, 86%, and 71%, respectively for moderate-to-severe TAO. The superiority of the bioassay was most prominent in euthyroid (ET) TAO. Positivity rates of the TSAb bioassay, bridge and ECLIA binding assays were 89.6%, 75%, and 64.6%, respectively for inactive TAO; 86.1%, 69.4%, and 52.8%, respectively for mild TAO; 87.5%, 62.5%, and 12.5%, respectively for euthyroid TAO. The bridge assay correlated better with the ECLIA binding assay (ρ=0.893, p<0.001), compared to the bioassay (ρ=0.669, p<0.001). Conclusions: In patients with TAO of various activity and severity, the TSAb bioassay demonstrates a superior clinical performance compared to both ECLIA and bridge binding assays.