Objectives
The aim was to determine the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleoprotein using four automated immunoassays and three ELISAs for the detection of total Ig antibodies (Roche) or IgG (Abbott, Diasorin, Snibe, Euroimmun, Mikrogen) in COVID-19 patients.
Methods
Sensitivity and dynamic trend to seropositivity were evaluated in 233 samples from 114 patients with moderate, severe or critical COVID-19 confirmed with PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. Specificity was evaluated in 113 samples collected before January 2020, including 24 samples from patients with non-SARS coronavirus infection.
Results
Sensitivity for all assays was 100% (95% confidence interval 83.7–100) 3 weeks after onset of symptoms. Specificity varied between 94.7% (88.7–97.8) and 100% (96.1–100). Calculated at the cut-offs that corresponded to a specificity of 95% and 97.5%, Roche had the highest sensitivity (85.0% (79.8–89.0) and 81.1% (76.6–85.7), p < 0.05 except vs. Abbott). Seroconversion occurred on average 2 days earlier for Roche total Ig anti-N and the three IgG anti-N assays (Abbott, Mikrogen, Euroimmun) than for the two IgG anti-S assays (Diasorin, Euroimmun) (≥50% seroconversion day 9–10 vs. day 11–12 and p < 0.05 for percent seropositive patients day 9–10 to 17–18). There was no significant difference in the IgG antibody time to seroconversion between critical and non-critical patients.
Discussion
Seroconversion occurred within 3 weeks after onset of symptoms with all assays and on average 2 days earlier for assays detecting IgG or total Ig anti-N than for IgG anti-S. The specificity of assays detecting anti-N was comparable to anti-S and excellent in a challenging control population.
This large prospective study demonstrates that medication history acquisition is very often incomplete in the ED. A structured form and a standardised method is necessary. Pharmacists are especially suited to acquire and supervise accurate medication histories, as they are educated and familiar with commonly used drugs.
Background:We evaluated the quantitative DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 antigen test in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals consulting their general practioner (GP) during a period of stable intense virus circulation (213/100,000 habitants per day).
Methods:Left-over RT-PCR positive (n=204) and negative (n=210) nasopharyngeal samples were randomly selected among fresh routine samples collected from patients consulting their GP. Samples were tested on Liaison XL according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Equivocal results were considered positive.
Results:Overall sensitivity and specificity of the Liaison antigen test compared to RT-PCR were 67.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 60.9%-73.7%] and 100% [CI: 97.8%-100%]. Sensitivity in samples with a viral load ≥105, ≥104 and ≥103 copies/mL was 100% [CI: 96.3%-100.0%], 96.5% [CI: 91.8%-98.7%] and 87.4% [CI: 81.3%-91.5%], respectively. All samples ≤103 copies/mL were antigen negative. The ratio of antigen concentration to viral load in samples ≥103 copies/mL was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals (p=0.58). The proportion of RT-PCR positive participants with a high viral load (≥105 copies/mL) was not significantly higher in symptomatic than in asymptomatic participants (63.9% [CI: 54.9%-72.0%] vs. 51.9% [CI: 41.1%-62.6%], p=0.11), but the proportion of participants with a low viral load (<103 copies/mL) was significantly higher in asymptomatic than in symptomatic RT-PCR positive participants (35.4% [CI: 25.8%-46.4%] vs. 14.3% [CI: 9.0%-21.8%], p<0.01).
Conclusions:Sensitivity and specificity in samples with a viral load ≥104 copies/mL was 96.5% and 100%. The correlation of antigen concentration with viral load was comparable in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.