Testing for responses to the wrong SARS-CoV-2 antigen?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rosadas C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7455229 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Dysregulated immune responses contribute to the excessive and uncontrolled inflammation observed in severe COVID-19. However, how immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is induced and regulated remains unclear. Here we uncover a role of the complement system in the induction of innate and adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Complement rapidly opsonizes SARS-CoV-2 particles via the lectin pathway. Complement-opsonized SARS-CoV-2 efficiently induces type-I interferon and pro-inflammatory cytokine responses via activation of dendritic cells, which are inhibited by antibodies against the complement receptors (CR) 3 and 4. Serum from COVID-19 patients, or monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, attenuate innate and adaptive immunity induced by complement-opsonized SARS-CoV-2. Blocking of CD32, the FcγRII antibody receptor of dendritic cells, restores complement-induced immunity. These results suggest that opsonization of SARS-CoV-2 by complement is involved in the induction of innate and adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the acute phase of infection. Subsequent antibody responses limit inflammation and restore immune homeostasis. These findings suggest that dysregulation of the complement system and FcγRII signaling may contribute to severe COVID-19.
| S-SCDT-10_1038-S44318-024-00061-0 | biostudies-other
Project description:Real-world data are needed to establish SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing (RAT) as an effective and reliable approach for SARS-CoV-2 screening. This study included 1,952,931 individuals who provided upper respiratory specimens during SARS-CoV-2 screening at CityMD urgent care locations in the New York metropolitan area from October 2020 to March 2021. Positive and negative results, as determined by the BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Veritor), were obtained for all individuals, with reflex reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing performed on a case-by-case basis, per standard of care. Using verification bias adjustment, two alternative model assumptions were utilized for RAT results with missing reflex RT-PCR results. The worst antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that missing RT-PCR results would show a distribution similar to those RT-PCR results actually obtained, based on symptom category. The best antigen diagnostic performance estimates asserted that individuals without RT-PCR results had a clinical presentation consistent with RAT results, and, therefore, missing RT-PCR results would agree with RAT results. For patients with symptoms or high-risk exposure, 25.3% (n = 86,811/343,253) of RAT results were positive; vs. 3.4% (n = 53,046/1,559,733) positive for asymptomatic individuals without high-risk exposure. Reflex RT-PCR results were obtained from 46.3% (n = 158,836/343,253) and 13.8% (n = 215,708/1,559,733) of symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, respectively. RT-PCR confirmed 94.4% (4,265/4,518) of positive and 90.6% (139,759/154,318) of negative RAT results in symptomatic individuals; and confirmed 83.4% (6,693/8,024) of positive and 95.3% (197,955/207,684) of negative RAT results in asymptomatic individuals. Applied assumptions for missing reflex RT-PCR results led to worst performance sensitivity estimates of 77.2 and 38.5% in the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations, respectively; assumptions for best performance estimates led to sensitivity values of 85.6 and 84.2%, respectively. Specificity values, regardless of assumptions or symptom category, ranged from 97.9-99.9%. At 10% SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, RAT positive predictive value was 86.9 and 99.0% for worst and best performance estimates across the total population, respectively; negative predictive values were >95% regardless of the applied assumption. Veritor test performance was consistent with that listed in the manufacturer instructions for use for symptomatic individuals. Real-world evidence should be gathered on RATs to support their efficacy as SARS-CoV-2 persists.
| S-EPMC9016156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread globally as a severe pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulates antigen-specific antibody responses. Multiple serologic tests have been developed for SARS-CoV-2. However, which antigens are most suitable for serological testing remains poorly understood. Specifically, which antigens have the highest sensitivity and specificity for serological testing and which have the least cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses are currently unknown. Previous studies have shown that the S1 domain of the spike (S) protein has very low cross-reactivity between epidemic coronaviruses and common human coronaviruses, whereas the S2 domain of the S protein and the nucleocapsid protein (N protein) show low-level cross-reactivity. Therefore, S1 is considered more specific than the native homotrimer of the S protein, and the receptor-binding domain as an antigen to test patient antibodies is more sensitive than the native N protein. In addition, an increasing number of studies have used multiantigen protein arrays to screen serum from convalescent patients with COVID-19. Antigen combinations demonstrated improved performance compared to each individual antigen. For rapid antigen detection, the sensitivity of the test is higher in the first week of onset of the disease with high viral loads. Highly sensitive and specific immunological diagnostic methods for antibodies or those that directly detect viral antigens in clinical samples would be beneficial for the rapid and accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC8091849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rapid antigen tests (RATs) are widely used for point-of-care or self-testing to identify SARS-CoV-2 (SCoV2), but currently circulating Omicron variants may impair detection. In this study, we prospectively evaluated the Roche-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen and Acon-FlowFlex-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen in 150 consecutively collected nasopharyngeal patient swabs (50 SCoV2 RNA undetectable; 100 SCoV2 Omicron BA.1). Omicron BA.1 results were compared to 92 Ct-matched early-pandemic SCoV2 variants (B.1.160 and B.1.177), to 100 Omicron BA.2 positive and to 100 Omicron BA.5 positive samples. For Omicron BA.1, Roche-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen detected 87% of samples having Ct-values <29 reflecting 3.6% lower rates compared to B.1.160 and B.1.177. Acon-FlowFlex-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen was less affected and detected 90% of Omicron BA.1 with Ct-values <29. Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 detection rates were significantly reduced by 20% and 10%, respectively, for the Roche-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen in samples with Ct-values <29 but remained similar for Acon-FlowFlex-SARS-CoV-2-Antigen. RATs need to be continuously evaluated as new SCoV2-variants emerge. Spreading of Omicron-BA.2, and the recently emerged Omicron BA.5 variant, may not only result from escape from postvaccine or postinfection immunity, but also from false-negative RATs misguiding point-of-care and self-testing decisions at times of restricted molecular testing. IMPORTANCE Antigen tests are widely used for rapid identification of SCoV2-positive cases and their increased risk of transmission. At present, there are several FDA- and CE-cleared tests available in North America and Europe. However, their diagnostic performance has been evaluated with early-pandemic variants. This study provides evidence that variation within the nucleocapsid protein as seen in recently emerged and now globally spreading Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 variants significantly impairs detection rates of widely used antigen tests. Consequently, antigen tests need to be reevaluated when new pandemic SCoV2 variants emerge and start to predominate globally.
| S-EPMC9431421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High frequency, rapid turnaround SARS-CoV-2 testing continues to be proposed as a way of efficiently identifying and mitigating transmission in congregate settings. However, two SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks occurred among intercollegiate university athletic programs during the fall 2020 semester despite mandatory directly observed daily antigen testing. During the fall 2020 semester, athletes and staff in both programs were tested daily using Quidel's Sofia SARS Antigen Fluorescent Immunoassay (FIA), with positive antigen results requiring confirmatory testing with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We used genomic sequencing to investigate transmission dynamics in these two outbreaks. In Outbreak 1, 32 confirmed cases occurred within a university athletics program after the index patient attended a meeting while infectious despite a negative antigen test on the day of the meeting. Among isolates sequenced from Outbreak 1, 24 (92%) of 26 were closely related, suggesting sustained transmission following an initial introduction event. In Outbreak 2, 12 confirmed cases occurred among athletes from two university programs that faced each other in an athletic competition despite receiving negative antigen test results on the day of the competition. Sequences from both teams were closely related and unique from strains circulating in the community, suggesting transmission during intercollegiate competition. These findings suggest that antigen testing alone, even when mandated and directly observed, may not be sufficient as an intervention to prevent SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in congregate settings, and highlights the importance of supplementing serial antigen testing with appropriate mitigation strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in congregate settings. High frequency, rapid turnaround SARS-CoV-2 testing continues to be proposed as a way of efficiently identifying and mitigating transmission in congregate settings. However, here we describe two SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks occurred among intercollegiate university athletic programs during the fall 2020 semester.
| S-EPMC7941640 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST379 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 antigen tests with saliva facilitate examination in settings that lack trained personnel. However, little is known about the diagnostic accuracy in real-life clinical settings. Therefore, we studied the diagnostic accuracy of a saliva antigen test in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in a primary/secondary care testing facility.MethodsIndividuals who presented at a COVID-19 testing facility affiliated with a Swiss university hospital were prospectively recruited (n=377). Saliva specimen was obtained, and the PCL Inc. COVID19 Gold antigen test was conducted in parallel with 2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays from a nasopharyngeal swab.ResultsRT-PCR results were positive in 53 individuals, corresponding to a prevalence of 14.1% (missing material in 1 individual). The PCL saliva antigen test was positive in 22 individuals (5.8%) and negative in 354 (93.9%). The sensitivity of the saliva antigen test was 30.2% (95% confidence interval 18.3, 44.3), both overall and in symptomatic individuals. The specificity was 98.1% (96.0, 99.3).ConclusionsThe diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test in a primary/secondary care testing facility was remarkably lower than that reported in the manufacturer's specifications.
| S-EPMC8964446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Alongside vaccines, antiviral drugs are becoming an integral part of our response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Nirmatrelvir - an orally available inhibitor of the 3-chymotrypsin-like cysteine protease - has been shown to reduce the risk of progression to severe COVID-19. However, the impact of nirmatrelvir treatment on the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses is unknown. Here, by using mouse models of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we show that nirmatrelvir administration blunts the development of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody and T cell responses. Accordingly, upon secondary challenge, nirmatrelvir-treated mice recruited significantly fewer memory T and B cells to the infected lungs and to mediastinal lymph nodes, respectively. Together, the data highlight a potential negative impact of nirmatrelvir treatment with important implications for clinical management and might help explain the virological and/or symptomatic relapse after treatment completion reported in some individuals.
| S-SCDT-10_15252-EMMM_202317580 | biostudies-other
Project description:hACE2 transgenic mice were infected with the original SARS-CoV-2 strain (B.1) and the Beta (B.1.351) variant. Lung and spleen samples were collected 1 day post infection (DPI), 3 DPI and 5 DPI, and mRNA was sequenced.
2023-09-22 | E-MTAB-13308 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection has currently expanded the testing capacity for COVID-19, which yet relies on the SARS-CoV-2 RNA RT-PCR amplification. To report on a COVID-19 testing algorithm from a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED) that combines both antigen (performed on the ED) and RT-PCR (performed outside the ED) testing. Between December 2020 and January 2021, in a priori designated, spatially separated COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 ED areas, respectively, symptomatic or asymptomatic patients received SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing on nasopharyngeal swab samples. Antigen results were promptly accessible to guide subsequent, outside performed confirmatory (RT-PCR) testing. Overall, 1083 (100%) of 1083 samples in the COVID-19 area and 1815 (49.4%) of 3670 samples in the non-COVID-19 area had antigen results that required confirmation by RT-PCR. Antigen positivity rates were 12.4% (134/1083) and 3.7% (66/1815), respectively. Compared to RT-PCR testing results, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of antigen testing were, respectively, 68.0%, 98.3%, 88.8%, and 94.1% in the COVID-19 area, and 41.9%, 97.3%, 27.3%, and 98.6% in non-COVID-19 area. Practically, RT-PCR tests were avoided in 50.6% (1855/3670) of non-COVID-19 area samples (all antigen negative) from patients who, otherwise, would have needed antigen result confirmation. Our algorithm had value to preserve RT-PCR from avoidable usage and, importantly, to save time, which translated into a timely RT-PCR result availability in the COVID-19 area.
| S-EPMC8304665 | biostudies-literature