Clinical performance of four immunoassays for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, including a prospective analysis for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a real-life routine care setting

The impact of inaccurate assumptions about antibody test accuracy on the parametrisation and results of infectious disease models of epidemics

The parametrisation of infectious disease models is often done based on epidemiological studies that use diagnostic and serology tests to establish disease prevalence or seroprevalence in the population being modelled. During outbreaks of an emerging infectious disease, tests are often used, both for disease control and epidemiological studies, before studies evaluating their accuracy in the population have concluded, with assumptions made about accuracy parameters like sensitivity and specificity. In this simulation study, we simulated such an outbreak, based on the case study of COVID-19, and found that inaccurate parametrisation of infectious disease models due to assumptions about antibody test accuracy in a seroprevalence study can cause modelling results that inform public health decisions to be inaccurate; for example, in our simulation setup, assuming that antibody test specificity was 0.99 instead of 0.90 when it was in fact 0.90 led to an average relative difference of 0.78 in model-projected peak hospitalisations, even when test sensitivity and all other parameters were accurately characterised. We therefore suggest that methods to speed up test evaluation studies are vitally important in the public health response to an emerging outbreak.

The burden of the coronavirus disease 2019 virus infection in Burkina Faso: Results from a World Health Organization UNITY population-based, age-stratified sero-epidemiological investigation

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to estimate the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in the general population of Bobo-Dioulasso and Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso).

METHODS

We collected from March to April 2021 blood samples from randomly selected residents in both main cities based on the World Health Organization (WHO) sero-epidemiological investigations protocols and tested them with WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits intended for qualitative assessment. We also recorded participants' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and information on exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Data were analysed with descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

We tested 5240 blood samples collected between 03 March and 16 April 2021. The overall test-adjusted seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was (67.8% [95% CI 65.9-70.2]) (N = 3553/3982). Seroprevalence was highest among participants aged 15-18 years old (74.2% [95% CI 70.5-77.5]) (N = 465/627), compared with those aged 10-14 years old (62.6% [95% CI 58.7-66.4]) (N = 395/631), or those over 18 (67.6% [95% CI 66.2-69.1]) (N = 2693/3982). Approximately 71.0% (601/860) of participants aged 10-18 years old who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies experienced no clinical COVID-19 symptoms in the weeks before the survey, compared with 39.3% (1059/2693) among those aged over 18 years old.

CONCLUSION

This study reports the results of the first known large serological survey in the general population of Burkina Faso. It shows high circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in the two cities and a high proportion of asymptomatic adolescents. Further studies are needed to identify the SARS-CoV-2 variants and to elucidate the factors protecting some infected individuals from developing clinical COVID-19.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Long-Term Antibody Response and Vaccination Efficacy in Patients with COVID-19: A Single Center One-Year Prospective Study from the Czech Republic

Background: The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is almost exclusively performed by PCR or antigen detection. The detection of specific antibodies has not yet been considered in official diagnostic guidelines as major laboratory evidence for a case definition. The aim the present study is to analyze antibody responses in outpatient and inpatient cohorts of COVID-19 patients in the Czech Republic over a 12-month period, and assess the potential of antibodies as a diagnostic tool. Methods: A total of 644 patients was enrolled in the prospective study. IgA, IgM and IgG antibody levels, as well as virus neutralization titers, were analyzed over a 12-month period. Results: Our study showed low antibody positivity levels at the admission. However, at 2 weeks after infection, 98.75% and 95.00% of hospitalized patients were IgA and IgG positive, respectively. Even in the outpatient cohort characterized by milder disease courses, the IgG antibody response was still sustained at 9 and 12 months. The data show a high correlation between the IgG levels and virus neutralization titers (VNTs). Samples from later time-points showed positive antibody responses after vaccination in both cohorts characterized by high IgG levels and VNT over 1:640. The samples from unvaccinated persons indicated a relatively high level of reinfection at 6.87%. Conclusions: Our results show that the detection of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 shows an increasing sensitivity from week 2 after infection and remains highly positive over the 12-month period. The levels of IgG antibodies correlate significantly with the VNTs. This suggests that the serological data may be a valuable tool in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Confirmed circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in Irish blood donors prior to first national notification of infection

Introduction

Blood donor studies offer a unique opportunity to screen healthy populations for the presence of antibodies to emerging infections. We describe the use of blood donor specimens to track the ‘first-wave’ of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland.

Methodology

A random selection of donor samples received by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS) between February and September 2020 (n = 8,509) were screened by multiple commercial SARs-CoV-2 antibody assays. The antibody detection rate was adjusted to the population to determine the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Ireland.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection rose significantly during the first peak of COVID-19 infection, increasing from 0.3% in March, to 2.9% in April (p < 0.0001, The first SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive donor samples were collected on the 17th February 2020, 2 weeks prior to the first official notification. This is the earliest serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the Irish population. Our results also show a significantly higher antibody prevalence in the Capital city and in donors less than 40 years of age.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrates evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody reactivity across all age groups and counties. The critical value of blood donor seroprevalence studies is apparent in this report which identified the earliest serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Ireland, as well as documenting the evolution of COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland over time.

2D MOF-Based Photoelectrochemical Aptasensor for SARS-CoV-2 Spike Glycoprotein Detection

A reliable and sensitive detection approach for SARS-CoV 2 is essential for timely infection diagnosis and transmission prevention. Here, a two-dimensional (2D) metal-organic framework (MOF)-based photoelectrochemical (PEC) aptasensor with high sensitivity and stability for SARS-CoV 2 spike glycoprotein (S protein) detection was developed. The PEC aptasensor was constructed by a plasmon-enhanced photoactive material (namely, Au NPs/Yb-TCPP) with a specific DNA aptamer against S protein. The Au NPs/Yb-TCPP fabricated by in situ growth of Au NPs on the surface of 2D Yb-TCPP nanosheets showed a high electron-hole (e-h) separation efficiency due to the enhancement effect of plasmon, resulting in excellent photoelectric performance. The modified DNA aptamer on the surface of Au NPs/Yb-TCPP can bind with S protein with high selectivity, thus decreasing the photocurrent of the system due to the high steric hindrance and low conductivity of the S protein. The established PEC aptasensor demonstrated a highly sensitive detection for S protein with a linear response range of 0.5-8 μg/mL with a detection limit of 72 ng/mL. This work presented a promising way for the detection of SARS-CoV 2, which may conduce to the impetus of clinic diagnostics.

A comparative review of immunoassays for COVID-19 detection

Introduction: The gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is expensive, time-consuming and may result in false-negative results. Serological tests can be employed for RT-PCR negative patients, contact tracing, determining the probability of protection against re-infection, and seroepidemiological studies.Areas covered: The main methodologies of serology-based tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) were reviewed and their diagnostic performances were compared. Herein, a literature review on the databases of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 based on the main serological methods for COVID-19 detection with the focus on comparative experiments was performed. The review was updated on December 31, 2020.Expert opinion: Serology testing could be considered as a part of diagnostic panel two-week post symptom onset. Higher sensitivity for serology-based tests could be achieved by determining combined IgG/IgM titers. Furthermore, higher sensitive serological test detecting neutralization antibody could be developed by targeting spike (S) antigen. It was also demonstrated that the sensitivity of ELISA/CLIA-based methods are higher than LFIA devices.

Optimization and validation of RT-LAMP assay for diagnosis of SARS-CoV2 including the globally dominant Delta variant

Background

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19 pandemic, has infected more than 179 million people worldwide. Testing of infected individuals is crucial for identification and isolation, thereby preventing further spread of the disease. Presently, Taqman™ Reverse Transcription Real Time PCR is considered gold standard, and is the most common technique used for molecular testing of COVID-19, though it requires sophisticated equipments, expertise and is also relatively expensive.

Objective

Development and optimization of an alternate molecular testing method for the diagnosis of COVID-19, through a two step Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated isothermal AMPlification (RT-LAMP).

Results

Primers for LAMP were carefully designed for discrimination from other closely related human pathogenic coronaviruses. Care was also taken that primer binding sites are present in conserved regions of SARS-CoV2. Our analysis shows that the primer binding sites are well conserved in all the variants of concern (VOC) and variants of interest (VOI), notified by World Health Organization (WHO). These lineages include B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, B.1.617.2, B.1.427/B.1.429, P.2, B.1.525, P.3, B.1.526 and B.1.617.1. Various DNA polymerases with strand displacement activity were evaluated and conditions were optimized for LAMP amplification and visualization. Different LAMP primer sets were also evaluated using synthetic templates as well as patient samples.

Conclusion

In a double blind study, the RT-LAMP assay was validated on more than 150 patient samples at two different sites. The RT-LAMP assay appeared to be 89.2% accurate when compared to the Taqman™ rt-RT-PCR assay.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12985-021-01642-9.

SARS-CoV-2 Serology Monitoring of a Cancer Center Staff in the Pandemic Most Infected Italian Region

Simple Summary

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, Cancer Centers adopted specific procedures to protect patients as well as to monitor the possible spread of SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare personnel. In April 2020, we implemented a prospective longitudinal study aimed at monitoring the serological response to SARS-Cov-2 in the healthcare personnel of a Comprehensive Cancer Center identified by the Lombardy region (the Italian region most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic) as one of the three oncologic hubs where the Regional Health Authorities referred all the cancer patients in the region. We identified a fraction of healthcare personnel with long-term anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response, though negative for viral RNA, who could safely approach fragile cancer patients.

Abstract

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, Cancer Centers adopted specific procedures both to protect patients and to monitor the possible spread of SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare personnel (HCP). In April 2020 at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, one of the three oncologic hubs in Lombardy where the Health Regional Authorities referred all the cancer patients of the region, we implemented a prospective longitudinal study aimed at monitoring the serological response to SARS-Cov-2 in HCP. One hundred and ten HCP answered a questionnaire and were screened by nasopharyngeal swabs as well as for IgM/IgG levels; seropositive HCPs were further screened every 40–45 days using SARS-CoV-2-specific serology. We identified a fraction of HCP with long-term anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses, though negative for viral RNA, and thus probably able to safely approach fragile cancer patients. Monitoring asymptomatic HCP might provide useful information to organize the healthcare service in a Cancer Center, while waiting for the effectiveness of the active immunization by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, which will provide protection from infection.

Multicenter evaluation of four immunoassays for the performance of early diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody responses of patients with pneumonia in Taiwan

Background/purpose

Our study goals were to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies tests and the differences in dynamic immune responses between COVID-19 patients with and without pneumonia.

Methods

We collected 184 serum samples from 70 consecutively qRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients at four participating hospitals from 23 January 2020 to 30 September 2020. COVID-19 pneumonia was defined as the presence of new pulmonary infiltration. Serum samples were grouped by the duration after symptom onset on a weekly basis for antibody testing and analysis. The four immunoassays: Beckman SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (Beckman Test), Siemens (ADVIA Centaur®) SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) (Siemens Test), SBC COVID-19 IgG ELISA (SBC Test) and EliA SARS-CoV-2-Sp1 IgG/IgM/IgA P2 Research (EliA Test) were used for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies.

Results

The sensitivity of all tests reached 100% after 42 days of symptom onset. Siemens Test, the only test detecting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, had the best performance in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (day 0–7: 77%; day 8–14: 95%) compared to the other 3 serological tests. All tests showed 100% specificity except SBC Test (98%). COVID-19 patients with pneumonia had significantly higher testing signal values than patients without pneumonia (all p values < 0.05, except EliA IgM Test). However, Siemens Test and SBC Test had highest probability in early prediction of the presence of COVID-19 pneumonia.

Conclusion

Chronological analysis of immune response among COVID-19 patients with different serological tests provides important information in the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and prediction of the risk of pneumonia after infection.

Development of a Fast SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA, Based on Receptor-Binding Domain, and Its Comparative Evaluation Using Temporally Segregated Samples From RT-PCR Positive Individuals

SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection assays are crucial for gathering seroepidemiological information and monitoring the sustainability of antibody response against the virus. The SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein's receptor-binding domain (RBD) is a very specific target for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection. Moreover, many neutralizing antibodies are mapped to this domain, linking antibody response to RBD with neutralizing potential. Detection of IgG antibodies, rather than IgM or total antibodies, against RBD is likely to play a larger role in understanding antibody-mediated protection and vaccine response. Here we describe a rapid and stable RBD-based IgG ELISA test obtained through extensive optimization of the assay components and conditions. The test showed a specificity of 99.79% (95% CI: 98.82-99.99%) in a panel of pre-pandemic samples (n = 470) from different groups, i.e., pregnancy, fever, HCV, HBV, and autoantibodies positive. Test sensitivity was evaluated using sera from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive individuals (n = 312) and found to be 53.33% (95% CI: 37.87-68.34%), 80.47% (95% CI: 72.53-86.94%), and 88.24% (95% CI: 82.05-92.88%) in panel 1 (days 0-13), panel 2 (days 14-20) and panel 3 (days 21-27), respectively. Higher sensitivity was achieved in symptomatic individuals and reached 92.14% (95% CI: 86.38-96.01%) for panel 3. Our test, with a shorter runtime, showed higher sensitivity than parallelly tested commercial ELISAs for SARS-CoV-2-IgG, i.e., Euroimmun and Zydus, even when equivocal results in the commercial ELISAs were considered positive. None of the tests, which are using different antigens, could detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgGs in 10.5% RT-PCR positive individuals by the fourth week, suggesting the lack of IgG response.

A lateral flow immunoassay test performance in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys: a validation study among healthcare workers

The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of NG-Test® when used as a finger-prick test on healthcare workers and to compare it to the ELISA Wantai Immunoassay. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positive and 59 who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 negative accepted to participate in this study. They were subjected to an NG-Test® finger-prick test and collection of a blood sample on the same day. A second NG-Test® on another finger was performed for the first 30 cases and controls and read blinded to the first. Sera obtained from blood samples were used to perform the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 ELISA. The interobserver agreement for the NG-Test® test was perfect (kappa coefficient = 100% [98%-100%]). The sensitivity of NG-Test® was estimated to be 85% [71.9%-92.3%] and the specificity 98.3% [95.0%-100.0%]) for both IgG and IgM. The percentage of agreement between the Wantai immunoassay and NG-Test® was 92.73% for IgG (Kappa = 0.85 [0.75-0.95]) and 65.45% (Kappa = 0.42 [0.26-0.58]) for IgM. Our study highlights the need to validate rapid immunoassay tests under real-life conditions. If NG-Test® is used in seroprevalence surveys, we recommend that its diagnostic performance be taken into consideration to obtain a reliable estimation.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) universal screening in gravids during labor and delivery

Objective

To screen pregnant women at risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during delivery using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test and serum immunoglobulin (Ig) testing.

Method

Between March 31 st and August 31 st of 2020, consecutive pregnant women admitted for labor and delivery in a single hospital were screened for SARS-CoV-2 with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR swab tests and detection of serum IgG and IgM.

Results

We studied 266 pregnant women admitted for labor and delivery. The prevalence of acute or past SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.0 %, including (i) two cases with respiratory symptoms of SARS-Co-V-2 infection and positive RT-PCR; (ii) four asymptomatic women with positive RT-PCR without clinical symptoms and negative serological tests between two and 15 weeks later; and (iii) two women with false positive RT-PCR due to technical problems. All newborns of the 6 pregnant women with RT-PCR positive had negative RT-PCR and did not require Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admission. There were eighteen asymptomatic women with positive serological IgG tests and negative RT-PCR.

Conclusion

In our cohort of gravids, we found 2.2 % of women with positive RT-PRC tests and 6.7 % with positive serological tests during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Comparative analysis of three laboratory based serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in an Australian cohort

Many unanswered questions remain regarding the role of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in this unfolding COVID-19 pandemic. These include their utility for the diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, past infection or exposure, correlation with immunity and the effective duration of immunity. This study examined the performance of three laboratory based serological assays, EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgG, MAGLUMI 2000 Plus 2019-nCov IgM/IgG and EDI Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) IgM/IgG immunoassays. We evaluated 138 samples from a reference non-infected population and 71 samples from a cohort of 37 patients with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed positive by RT-PCR. The samples were collected at various intervals of 0-45 days post symptoms onset (PSO). Specificity and sensitivity of these assays was 60.9%/71.4% (IgA) and 94.2%/63.3% (IgG) for EUROIMMUN; 98.5%/18.4% (IgM) and 97.8%/53.1% (IgG) for MAGLUMI; and 94.9%/22.5% (IgM) and 93.5%/57.1% (IgG) for EDI, respectively. When samples collected ≥14 days PSO were considered, the sensitivities were 100.0 and 100.0%; 31.0 and 82.8%; 34.5 and 57.1%, respectively. Using estimated population prevalence of 0.1, 1, and 10%, the positive predictive value of all assays remained low. The EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA lacked specificity for acute diagnosis and all IgM assays offered poor diagnostic utility. Seroconversion can be delayed although all patients had seroconverted at 28 days in our cohort with the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Despite this, with specificity of only 94% this assay would not be satisfactory for seroprevalence studies in the general Australian population given this is likely to be currently <1%.