Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

BackgroundReliable high-throughput serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Abs) are urgently needed for the effective containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it is of crucial importance to understand the strength and duration of immunity after infection, and to make informed decisions concerning the activation or discontinuation of physical distancing restrictions. MethodsIn 184 serum samples from 130 COVID-19 patients and 54 SARS-CoV-2 negative subjects, the analytical and clinical performances of four commercially available chemiluminescent assays (Abbott SARS-Cov-2 IgG, Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2, Ortho SARS-CoV-2 total and IgG) and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Diesse ENZY-WELL SARS-CoV-2 IgG) were evaluated and compared with the neutralization activity achieved using the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). FindingsPrecision results ranged from 0.9% to 11.8% for all assays. Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated linearity of results at concentrations within the cut-off value. Overall, sensitivity ranged from 78.5 to 87.8%, and specificity, from 97.6 to 100%. On limiting the analysis to samples collected 12 days after onset of symptoms, the sensitivity of all assays increased, the highest value (95.2%) being obtained with VITRO Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total and Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG. The strongest PRNT50 correlation with antibody levels was obtained with ENZY-Well SARS-CoV-2 IgG (rho = 0.541, p < 0.001). InterpretationThe results confirmed that all immunoassays had an excellent specificity, whereas sensitivity varied across immunoassays, depending strongly on the time interval between symptoms onset and sample collection. Further studies should be conducted to achieve a stronger correlation between antibody measurement and PRNT50 in order to obtain useful information for providing effective passive antibody therapy, and developing a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

BACKGROUNDIn December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)-infected pneumonia (COVID-19) occurred in Wuhan, China. Travel-associated cases have also been reported in other countries. The number of cases has increased rapidly but laboratory diagnosis is limited. METHODSWe collect two groups of cases diagnosed with COVID-19 for experiments. One group collected 63 samples for Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG and IgM antibodies. The other group collected 91 plasma samples for colloidal gold-immunochromatographic assay (GICA). RESULTSThe sensitivity of the combined ELISA IgM and ELISA IgG detection was 55/63 ( 87.3%), The sensitivity of the combined GICA IgM and GICA IgG detection was 75/91 ( 82.4%), Both methods are negative for healthy controls, specificity of 100%. There is no significant difference between the sensitivity of between ELISA and GICA (IgM+ IgG). CONCLUSIONSELISA and GICA for specific IgM and IgG antibodies are conventional serological assays, they are simple, fast, and safe, the results can be used for clinical reference, and the huge clinical diagnosis and treatment pressure can be greatly relieved.

BackgroundThe emerging 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has pushed several countries into state of emergency all over the world. The possible transmission of 2019-nCoV by conjunctiva is controversial and has substantial public health implications. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was initiated to investigate the possible transmission of 2019-nCoV through aerosol contact with conjunctiva. We enrolled 67 cases of confirmed or suspected cases of novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) during 17-28 Jan 2020. Nasopharyngeal and conjunctival swabs were collected for real time RT-PCR analysis to detect 2019-nCoV. Results63 patients were identified as laboratory-confirmed NCP and the remaining four were suspected NCP. Conjunctival swab samples from one NCP patient yielded positive PCR results and two NCP patients yielded probable positive PCR results. None of the three patients had ocular symptoms. The only one NCP patient with conjunctivitis as the first symptom had negative conjunctival sac 2019-nCoV test. Conjunctival swab samples from the four suspected cases of NCIP were negative. Conclusion2019-nCoV can be detected in the conjunctival sac of patients with NCP. Through clinical analysis, viral transmission via the conjunctival route was not supported by the data. Good clinical protection can effectively cut off the transmission path.

PurposeThe 2019 novel coronavirus(COVID-19) mainly transmitted by person-to-person through inhalation of respiratory droplets. We report the laboratory results of conjunctival PCR-tests and some clinical features of these patients in shenyang China. DesignThis is a cross-sectional non-randomized study SubjectsThe study include 14 confirmly diagnosed cases, 16 suspected cases and some medical observed patients. MethodsAll patients with diagnosed and suspected COVID-19 were admitted to a designated hospital in Shenyang, China. We collected conjunctival samples of these patients to do the laboratory tests by real time RT-PCR. Medical observed patients were enrolled if they had clinical symptoms. Then we analysed the PCR results and clinical data from eletronic medical records in order to find some relationships. Main Outcome MeasuresClinical condition and PCR results. of conjunctival swabs compared with other specimens ResultsOne of the identified case coverted from suspected case without typical clinical symptoms. Twenty-two medical observed cases were removed because none of them converted to identified cases. One of the suspected converted to identified case recently. The included cases in our study are imported cases with less underlying diseases and the severity of their infection was relatively moderate. All the conjunctival results of PCR-test were negative. Two cases had typical clinical symptoms but were finally confirmed by repeated pharynxswabtests. ConclusionConjunctiva may be a transmission way of COVID-19. And ocular conjunctival swabs in combination with PCR test could be a non-invasive, convenient and feasible diagnostic method for identifying the infection of COVID-19. Emphasis on the false-negative results is vital.

IntroductionFree light chain kappa (FLC{kappa}) are a newer sensitive biomarker to detect intrathecal immunoglobulin synthesis. Here we report the study protocol of the ORCAS study which will evaluate a novel laboratory work flow recently proposed including FLC{kappa} analysis simplifying cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis. MethodsThe ORCAS study is a prospective multicenter diagnostic biomarker study across at least 4 study sites. The study protocol does not specify which assays should be applied in the participating laboratories to detect oligoclonal bands (OCB) or measure FLC{kappa} or Ig synthesis to represent real world data. Primary outcome parameter is the sensitivity and negative predictive value of the absence of local FLC{kappa} synthesis for the absence of intrathecal synthesis according to OCB and/or intrathecal IgG, IgA, IgM synthesis in quotient diagrams. The reference range of FLC{kappa} will be indicated by the FLC{kappa} quotient diagram. This study was designed according to the STARD criteria. PerspectiveThe establishment of a newer biomarker in routine practice is associated with significant difficulties, such as the inconsistent comparability of different measurement platforms, the establishment of suitable cut-offs or insufficient knowledge regarding sensitivity and specificity of the biomarker. If the ORCAS study objective is achieved, the use of the proposed workflow integrating FLC{kappa} analysis in routine practice in CSF diagnostics could help to better characterize the intraindividual and disease-specific intrathecal humoral immune response in a resource-efficient manner.

BackgroundIncreased levels of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in blood have been identified as a valuable biomarker for some neurological disorders, such as Alzheimers disease and multiple sclerosis. However, most blood GFAP quantifications so far were performed using the same bead-based assay, and to date a routine clinical application is lacking. MethodsIn this study, we validated a novel second-generation (2nd gen) Ella assay to quantify serum GFAP. Furthermore, we compared its performance with a bead-based single molecule array (Simoa) and a homemade blood GFAP assay in a clinical cohort of neurological diseases, including 210 patients. ResultsValidation experiments resulted in an intra-assay variation of 10%, an inter-assay of 12%, a limit of detection of 0.9 pg/mL, a lower limit of quantification of 2.8_pg/mL, and less than 20% variation in serum samples exposed to up to five freeze-thaw cycles, 120_hours at 4 {degrees}C and room temperature. Measurement of the clinical cohort using all assays revealed the same pattern of GFAP distribution in the different diagnostic groups. Moreover, we observed a strong correlation between the 2nd gen Ella and Simoa (r=0.91 (95% CI: 0.88 - 0.93), p<0.0001) and the homemade immunoassay (r=0.77 (95% CI: 0.70 - 0.82), p<0.0001). ConclusionsOur results demonstrate a high reliability, precision and reproducibility of the 2nd gen Ella assay. Although a higher assay sensitivity for Simoa was observed, the new microfluidic assay might have the potential to be used for GFAP analysis in daily clinical workups due to its robustness and ease of use. What is already known on this topicO_LIBlood glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels are an emerging biomarker for diagnosing, prognosis and treatment monitoring for AD, MS and other neurological disorders. However, so far, the application in clinical routine remains a challenge. C_LI What this study addsO_LIThis study validated a novel, easy-to-use second-generation microfluidic assay for the quantitative measurement of blood GFAP. Moreover, its performance was compared to two other GFAP immunoassays, including single molecule array. C_LI How this study might affect research, practice or policyO_LIThis study proved the reliability, precision and reproducibility of the novel second-generation microfluidic assay, which might be more easily implemented in daily clinical routine analyses and therefore facilitates the application of GFAP as a biomarker for neurological diseases. C_LI

Present pandemic scenario, there exists an unmet global need for the development of a rapid and sensitive method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The available options for identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection are detection of viral RNA by qRT-PCR, Antigen or Antibody testing by serological methods. Even though many kits available commercially but none of them are rapid, sensitive and high throughput. OnCovid total antibody assay is a diagnostic method developed by us uses the principle of bio-layer Interferometry to detect IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens. This method overcomes many of the limitations normally faced in antibody detection by other methods and offers a superior platform for a rapid, sensitive and specific detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The test is economical, and the results can be obtained in as short as 30 seconds per test. In addition to its standalone use in early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, OnCovid total antibody assay can be used to therapeutic monitoring of antiviral therapies used in clinical management and to estimate the antibody titers during convalescent plasma donation.

A respiratory illness has been spreading rapidly in China, since its outbreak in Wuhan city, Hubei province in December 2019. The illness was caused by a novel coronavirus, named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Clinical manifestations related to SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from no symptom to fatal pneumonia. World Health Organization (WHO) named the diseases associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection as COVID-19. Real time RT-PCR is the only laboratory test available till now to confirm the infection. However, the accuracy of real time RT-PCR depends on many factors, including sampling location and of methods, quality of RNA extraction and training of operators etc.. Variations in these factors might significantly lower the sensitivity of the detection. We developed a peptide-based luminescent immunoassay to detect IgG and IgM. Cut-off value of this assay was determined by the detection of 200 healthy sera and 167 sera from patients infected with other pathogens than SARS-CoV-2. To evaluate the performance of this assay, we detected IgG and IgM in the 276 sera from confirmed patients. The positive rate of IgG and IgM were 71.4% (197/276) and 57.2% (158/276) respectively. By combining with real time RT-PCR detection, this assay might help to enhance the accuracy of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BackgroundO_ST_ABSAbstractC_ST_ABSReliable SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are required for diagnosing infections, for the serosurveillance of past exposures and for assessing the response to future vaccines. In this study, the analytical and clinical performances of a chemiluminescent immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection (Mindray CL-1200i), targeting Nucleocapsid (N) and receptor binding domain (RBD) portion of the Spike protein, were evaluated. MethodsPrecision and linearity were evaluated using standardized procedures. A total of 157 leftover serum samples from 81 hospitalized confirmed COVID-19 patients (38 with moderate and 43 with severe disease) and 76 SARS-CoV-2 negative subjects (44 healthcare workers, 20 individuals with rheumatic disorders, 12 pregnant women) were included in the study. In an additional series of 44 SARS-CoV-2 positive, IgM and IgG time kinetics were also evaluated in a time-period of 38 days. ResultsPrecision was below or equal to 4% for both IgM and IgG, in all the studied levels, whilst a slightly significant deviation from linearity was observed for both assays in the range of values covering the manufacturers cut-off. Considering a time frame [&ge;] 12 days post symptom onset, sensitivity and specificity for IgM were 92.3% (95%CI:79.1%-98.4%) and 92.1% (95%CI:83.6%-97.0%). In the same time frame, sensitivity and specificity for IgG were 100% (95%CI:91.0%-100%) and 93.4% (95%CI:85.3%-97.8%). The assays agreement was 73.9% (Cohens kappa of 0.373). Time kinetics showed a substantial overlapping of IgM and IgG response, the latter values being elevated up to 38 days from symptoms onset. ConclusionsAnalytical imprecision is satisfactory as well as the linearity, particularly when taking into account the fact that both assays are claimed to be qualitative. Diagnostic sensitivity of IgG was excellent, especially considering specimens collected [&ge;]12 days post symptom onset. Time kinetics suggest that IgM and IgG are detectable early in the course of infection, but the role of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical practice still requires further evaluations.

There is an urgent need for reliable high-throughput serological assays for the management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Preferably, the performance of serological tests for a novel virus should be determined with clinical specimens against a gold standard, i.e. virus neutralisation. We evaluated specificity and sensitivity of six commercial immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies, including four automated assays [Abbott SARS-COV-2 IgG (CE marked), Diasorin Liaison(R) SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (research use only), and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA (CE marked)], and two rapid lateral flow (immunocromatographic) tests [Acro Biotech 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM (CE marked) and Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (CE marked)] in comparison with a microneutralisation test (MNT). Two specimen panels from serum samples sent to Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory (HUSLAB) were compiled: the patient panel included sera from PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients, and the negative panel included sera sent for screening of autoimmune diseases and respiratory virus antibodies in 2018 and 2019. The MNT was carried out for all COVID-19 samples (70 serum samples, 62 individuals) and for 53 samples from the negative panel. Forty-one out of 62 COVID-19 patients showed neutralising antibodies with median of 11 days (range 3-51) after onset of symptoms. The specificity and sensitivity values of the commercial tests against MNT, respectively, were as follows: 95.1%/80.5% (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 94.9%/43.8% (Diasorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 68.3%/87.8% (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgA), 86.6%/70.7% (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 74.4%/56.1% (Acro 2019-nCoV IgG), 69.5%/46.3% (Acro 2019-nCoV IgM), 97.5%/71.9% (Xiamen Biotime SARS-CoV-2 IgG), and 88.8%/81.3% (Xiamen Biotime SARSCoV-2 IgM). This study shows variable performance values. Laboratories should carefully consider their testing process, such as a two-tier approach, in order to optimize the overall performance of SARS-CoV-2 serodiagnostics.

BACKGROUNDNucleic acid test and antibody assay have been employed in the diagnosis for SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the use of viral antigen for diagnosis has not been successfully developed. Theoretically, viral antigen is the specific marker of the virus and precedes antibody appearance within the infected population. There is a clear need of detection of viral antigen for rapid and early diagnosis. METHODSWe included a cohort of 239 participants with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection from 7 centers for the study. We measured nucleocapsid protein in nasopharyngeal swab samples in parallel with the nucleic acid test. Nucleic acid test was taken as the reference standard, and statistical evaluation was taken in blind. We detected nucleocapsid protein in 20 urine samples in another center, employing nasopharyngeal swab nucleic acid test as reference standard. RESULTSWe developed a fluorescence immunochromatographic assay for detecting nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab sample and urine within 10 minutes. 100% of nucleocapsid protein positive and negative participants accord with nucleic acid test for same samples. Further, earliest participant after 3 days of fever can be identified by the method. In an additional preliminary study, we detected nucleocapsid protein in urine in 73.6% of diagnosed COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONSThose findings indicate that nucleocapsid protein assay is an accurate, rapid, early and simple method for diagnosis of COVID-19. Appearance of nucleocapsid protein in urine coincides our finding of the SARS-CoV-2 invading kidney and might be of diagnostic value.

BackgroundInitial reports indicate adequate performance of some serological-based SARS-CoV-2 assays. However, additional studies are required to facilitate interpretation of results, including how antibody levels impact immunity and disease course. MethodsIn this study, a total of 968 subjects were tested for IgG antibodies reactive to SARS-CoV-2. We confirmed analytic specificity using 656 plasma samples from healthy donors, 49 sera from patients with rheumatic disease, and 90 specimens from individuals positive for PCR-based respiratory viral panel. One-hundred seventy-three cases of confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 were tested for IgG. A subgroup of 37 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive cases was tested for nucleocapsid-specific IgM antibody using an in-house developed microarray method. Antibody levels were compared between disease severity groups. ResultsAll specificity specimens were negative for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (0/656, 0%). Cross reactivity was not detected in specimens with antinuclear antibodies and rheumatoid factor, or cases with previous diagnosis of viral infection including human coronavirus. Positive agreement of IgG with PCR was 83% of samples confirmed to be more than 14 days from symptom onset, with less than 100% sensitivity attributable to a case with severe immunosuppression. Virus-specific IgM was positive in a higher proportion of cases less than 3 days from symptom onset. No association was observed between mild and severe disease course with respect to IgG and IgM levels. ConclusionsThe studied SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay had 100% specificity and no adverse cross-reactivity. Index values of IgG and IgM antibodies did not predict disease severity in our patient population.

BackgroundThe pandemic of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is causing great loss. Detecting viral RNAs is standard approach for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis with variable success. Currently, studies describing the serological diagnostic methods are emerging, while most of them just involve the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG by ELISA or "flow immunoassay" with limited accuracy. MethodsDiagnostic approach depends on chemiluminescence immunoanalysis (CLIA) for detecting IgA, IgM and IgG specific to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) and receptor-binding domain (RBD) was developed. The approach was tested with 216 sera from 87 COVID-19 patients and 483 sera from SARS-CoV-2 negative individuals. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Concentration kinetics of RBD-specific serum antibodies were characterized. The relationship of serum RBD-specific antibodies and disease severity was analyzed. ResultsThe diagnostic accuracy based on RBD outperformed those based on NP. Adding IgA to a conventional serological test containing IgM and IgG improves sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis at early stage. CLIA for detecting RBD-specific IgA, IgM and IgG showed diagnostic sensitivities of 98.6%, 96.8% and 96.8%, and specificities of 98.1%, 92.3% and 99.8%, respectively. Median concentration of IgA and IgM peaked during 16-20 days after illness onset at 8.84 g/mL and 7.25 g/mL, respectively, while IgG peaked during 21-25 days after illness onset at 16.47 g/mL. Furthermore, the serum IgA level positively correlates with COVID-19 severity. ConclusionCLIA for detecting SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific IgA, IgM and IgG in blood provides additional values for diagnosing and monitoring of COVID-19. SummaryChemiluminescence immunoanalysis of SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific serum IgA as well as IgM and IgG improves accuracy of COVID-19 diagnosis. Concentration kinetics of serum RBD-specific IgA, IgM and IgG are revealed. Serum IgA levels positively correlate with COVID-19 severity.

AimTo assess the diagnostic value of brain magnetic resonance imaging (bMRI) for the etiological diagnosis of uveitis and to establish predictive factors associated with its advantageous use. MethodsRetrospective study on all patients with de novo uveitis who were referred to our tertiary hospital and who underwent a bMRI between 2003 and 2018. The bMRI was considered useful if it served to confirm a diagnosis or correct a misdiagnosis. We also collected characteristics of uveitis and associated ophthalmological and neurological clinical signs. ResultsBrain MRI was contributive in 19 out of 402 cases (5%): 10 multiple sclerosis, 5 radiologically isolated syndromes, and 4 oculocerebral lymphomas. A total of 34 (8%) had neurological signs and 13 (38%) of those patients had a contributive bMRI. Meanwhile, in the absence of neurological signs, 1% of bMRIs were contributive, and none of them resulted in specific treatment. Among patients with a contributive bMRI, 68% had neurological signs. Univariate analysis established that neurological signs (p<0.001), granulomatous uveitis (p=0.003), retinal vasculitis (p=0.002), and intermediate uveitis (p<0.001) were all significantly associated with a contributive bMRI. Multivariate analysis confirms the significant association of neurological signs (p<0.001) and intermediate uveitis (p=0.01). Patients with oculocerebral lymphoma were significantly older (p<0.001) and all were above 40 years of age. ConclusionBrain MRI appears to be a relevant and contributive exam, but it should be performed in cases of intermediate/posterior uveitis or panuveitis accompanied by neurological signs, retinal vasculitis, or in patients older than 40, to rule out an oculocerebral lymphoma.

Plenty of serologic tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed so far, thus documenting the importance of evaluating the relevant features of the immune response to this viral agent. The performance of these assays is currently under investigation. Amongst them, LIAISON(R) SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG by DiaSorin and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 cobas(R) by Roche are currently used by laboratory medicine hospital departments in Italy and many other countries. In the present study, we have firstly compared two serologic tests on serum samples collected at two different time points from forty-six laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 subjects. Secondly, eighty-five negative serum samples collected before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were analyzed. Thirdly, possible correlations between antibody levels and the resulting neutralizing activity against a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated. Results revealed that both tests are endowed with low sensitivity on the day of hospital admission, which increased to 97.8 and 100% for samples collected after 15 days for DiaSorin and Roche tests, respectively. The specificity of the two tests ranges from 96.5 to 100%, respectively. Importantly, a poor direct correlation between antibody titers and neutralizing activity levels was evidenced in the present study.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for the large-volume detection of total antibodies (Ab) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was organized as a Danish national collaboration and included fifteencommercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in sixteen laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 serum samples from individuals diagnosed with asymptomatic,mild or moderate nonhospitalized (n=129) or hospitalized (n=31) COVID-19, confirmed bynucleic acid amplification tests, collected 13-73 days from symptom onset. Specificity and cross-reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from > 586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases or CMV or EBV infections. Predefined specificity criteria of [&ge;] 99% were met by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one (Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG 97.2%). The sensitivities in descending order were: Wantai/ELISA total-Ab (96.7%), CUH/NOVO in-house ELISA total-Ab (96.0%), Ortho/Vitros total-Ab (95.3%), YHLO/iFlash-IgG (94.0%), Ortho/Vitros-IgG (93.3%), Siemens/Atellica total-Ab (93.2%), Roche-Elecsys total-Ab (92.7%), Abbott-Architect-IgG (90.0%), Abbott/Alinity-IgG (median 88.0%), Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (84.6%),Siemens/Vista total-Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA-IgG (78.0%), and Snibe/Maglumi-IgG (median 78.0%). The IgM results were variable, but one assay (Wantai/ELISA-IgM) hadboth high sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity. In conclusion, predefined sensitivity and specificity acceptance criteria of 90%/99%, respectively, for diagnostic use were met in five of six total-Ab and three of seven IgG assays.

BackgroundThe role and significance of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is not yet well known. MethodsWe conducted a study on 46 symptomatic subjects with disease confirmed by laboratory tests, to evaluate the presence of IgG and IgM antibodies in these subjects in relation to the time elapsed since the onset of symptoms. The analytical performance of the method used in the study and the effect of two different serum and plasma matrices were also assessed. ResultsIgG positivity was demonstrated in 100% of cases 15 days after the onset of the disease. IgM show lower concentrations and do not exceed 77% of cases after 15 days. The analytical performance of the method used (Maglumi 800, Snibe, China) was confirmed to be good in terms of imprecision, linearity and commutability in two sample matrix. ConclusionThe serological study through the search for specific IgG for SARS-CoV-2 results to be sensitive and suitable for population research and evidences that this approach can also play an important role in diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of specific IgMs are lower.

[Abstract]O_ST_ABSObjectiveC_ST_ABSCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become pandemic in the world. The need for IgG-IgM combined antibody test is booming, but data on diagnostic indexes evaluation was inadequate. The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic indexes of a rapid IgG-IgM combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2. MethodsA total of 179 patients were enrolled. Serum were collected for IgG-IgM combined antibody test and corresponding nasal and pharyngeal swab specimens were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. According to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, patients under study were categorized as PCR positive group in 90 patients and PCR negative group in 89 patients. Results1. Of the 90 PCR positive samples, 77 were tested positive by SARS-CoV-2 IgG-IgM test kit, yielding a sensitivity of 85.6%. Meanwhile, of the 89 PCR negative sample, 8 samples were detected positive, resulting in a specificity of 91%. Positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of this test kit was 95.1%, 82.7%, and 88.3%, respectively. Kappa efficiency between IgG/IgM test kit and RT-PCR were 0.75. 2. Accuracy in mild/common and severe/critical subgroup were 73.9% and 97.7%, respectively. Accuracy in clinical confirmed, suspected cases and other disease subgroups were 70%, 60%, and 100%, respectively. 3. Patients were further divided into 0 - 7, 8 - 15 and >= 16 groups according to the time from illness onset to sample collection. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in these three groups were 18.8%, 77.8% and 40%; 100%, 50% and 87.5%; 100%, 64.3%, and 93.9, respectively. ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of this ease-of-use IgG/IgM combined test kit were adequate, plus short turnaround time, no specific requirements for additional equipment or skilled technicians, all of these collectively contributed to its competence for mass testing. At the current stage, it cannot take the place of SARA-CoV-2 nucleic acid RT-PCR, but can be served as a complementary option for RT-PCR. The combination of RT-PCR and IgG-IgM combined test kit could provide further insight into SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis.

BACKGROUNDThe outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread globally. The laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has relied on nucleic acid tests. However, there are many limitations of nucleic acid tests, including low throughput and high rates of false negatives. More sensitive and accurate tests to effectively identify infected patients are needed. METHODSThis study has developed fully automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIA) to determine IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum. The assay performance has been evaluated at 10 hospitals. Clinical specificity was evaluated by measuring 972 hospitalized patients with diseases other than COVID-19, and 586 donors of a normal population. Clinical sensitivity was assessed on 503 confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and 52 suspected cases. RESULTSThe assays demonstrated satisfied assay precision with coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 4.45%. Inactivation of specimen does not affect assay measurement. SARS-CoV-2 IgM shows clinical specificity of 97.33% and 99.49% for hospitalized patients and normal population respectively. SARS-CoV-2 IgG shows clinical specificity of 97.43% and 99.15% for the hospitalized patients and the normal population respectively. SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG show clinical sensitivity of 85.88% and 96.62% respectively for confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection with RT-PCR, of 73.08% and 86.54% respectively for suspected cases. CONCLUSIONSwe have developed fully automated immunoassays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in human serum. The assays demonstrated high clinical specificity and sensitivity, and add great value to nucleic acid testing in fighting against the global pandemic of the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Serological assays for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are now of critical importance to support diagnosis, guide epidemiological intervention, and understand immune response to natural infection and vaccine administration. We developed and validated new anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM and IgA ELISA tests (ENZY-WELL SARS-CoV-2 ELISA, DIESSE Diagnostica Senese S.p.a.) based on whole-virus antigens. We used a total of 553 serum samples including samples from COVID-19 suspected and confirmed cases, healthy donors, and patients positive for other infections or autoimmune conditions. Overall, the assays showed good concordance with the indirect immunofluorescence reference test in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Especially for IgG and IgA, we observed high sensitivity (92.5 and 93.6%, respectively); specificity was high (>96%) for all antibody types ELISAs. In addition, sensitivity was linked to the days from symptoms onset (DSO) due to the seroconversion window, and for ENZY-WELL SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs resulted 100% in those samples collected after 10 and 12 DSO, respectively. The results showed that ENZY-WELL SARS-CoV-2 ELISAs may represent a valid option for both diagnostic and epidemiological purposes, covering all different antibody types developed in SARS-CoV-2 immune response.