Dataset Information

Immunologic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection from the Antigen Perspective.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Li D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8091849 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrom a public health perspective, the identification of individuals with mild respiratory symptoms due to SARS-CoV-2 infection is important to contain the spread of the disease. The objective of this study was to identify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath common to infection with different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to inform the development of a point-of-care breath test to detect infected individuals with mild symptoms.MethodsA prospective, real-world, observational study was conducted on mildly symptomatic out-patients presenting to community test-sites for RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 testing when the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants were driving the COVID-19 pandemic. VOCs in exhaled breath were compared between PCR-positive and negative individuals using TD-GC-ToF-MS. Candidate VOCs were tested in an independent set of samples collected during the Omicron phase of the pandemic.FindingsFifty breath samples from symptomatic RT-qPCR positive and 58 breath samples from test-negative, but symptomatic participants were compared. Of the 50 RT-qPCR-positive participants, 22 had breath sampling repeated 8-12 weeks later. PCA-X model yielded 12 distinct VOCs that discriminated SARS-CoV-2 active infection compared to recovery/convalescence period, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC), of 0.862 (0.747-0.977), sensitivity, and specificity of 82% and 86%, respectively. PCA-X model from 50 RT-qPCR positive and 58 negative symptomatic participants, yielded 11 VOCs, with AUROC of 0.72 (0.604-0.803) and sensitivity of 72%, specificity 65.5%. The 11 VOCs were validated in a separate group of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron positive patients' vs healthy controls demonstrating an AUROC of 0.96 (95% CI 0.827-0.993) with sensitivity of 80% specificity of 90%.InterpretationExhaled breath analysis is a promising non-invasive, point-of-care method to detect mild COVID-19 infection.FundingFunding for this study was a competitive grant awarded from the Vancouver Coastal Research Institute as well as funding from the BC Cancer Foundation.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Immunologic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection from the Antigen Perspective.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets