SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibody dynamics in a Dutch household study with dense sampling frame.

This study investigated the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection and diagnostics in 242 household members of different ages and with different symptom severity after SARS-CoV-2 exposure early in the pandemic (March-April 2020). Households with a SARS-CoV-2 confirmed positive case and at least one child in the Netherlands were followed for 6 weeks. Naso (NP)- and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs, oral fluid and feces specimens were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and serum for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. The dynamics of the presence of viral RNA and the serological response was modeled to determine the sampling time-frame and sample type with the highest sensitivity to confirm or reject a SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. In children higher viral loads compared to adults were detected at symptom onset. Early in infection, higher viral loads were detected in NP and OP specimens, while RNA in especially feces were longer detectable. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies have 90% probability of detection from 7 days (total Ig) and 18 days (IgG) since symptom onset. For highest probability of detection in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics early in infection, RT-PCR on NP and OP specimens are more sensitive than on oral fluid and feces. For SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics late after infection, RT-PCR on feces specimens and serology are more valuable.

Validation and clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2†surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT).

To understand SARS-CoV-2 immunity after natural infection or vaccination, functional assays such as virus neutralising assays are needed. So far, assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies rely on cell-culture based infection assays either using wild type SARS-CoV-2 or pseudotyped viruses. Such assays are labour-intensive, require appropriate biosafety facilities and are difficult to standardize. Recently, a new surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT) was described that uses the principle of an ELISA to measure the neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies directed against the receptor binding domain. Here, we performed an independent evaluation of the robustness, specificity and sensitivity on an extensive panel of sera from 269 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 259 unmatched samples collected before 2020 and compared it to cell-based neutralisation assays. We found a high specificity of 99.2 (95%CI: 96.9-99.9) and overall sensitivity of 80.3 (95%CI: 74.9-84.8) for the sVNT. Clinical sensitivity increased between early (<14 days post symptom onset or post diagnosis, dpos/dpd) and late sera (>14 dpos/dpd) from 75.0 (64.7-83.2) to 83.1 (76.5-88.1). Also, higher severity was associated with an increase in clinical sensitivity. Upon comparison with cell-based neutralisation assays we determined an analytical sensitivity of 74.3 (56.4-86.9) and 98.2 (89.4-99.9) for titres ≥10 to <40 and ≥40 to <160, respectively. Only samples with a titre ≥160 were always positive in the sVNT. In conclusion, the sVNT can be used as an additional assay to determine the immune status of COVID-19 infected of vaccinated individuals but its value needs to be assessed for each specific context.