RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to suffer from delays and shortages. Antigen tests have recently emerged as a viable alternative to detect patients with high viral loads, associated with elevated risk of transmission. While rapid lateral flow tests greatly improved accessibility of SARS-CoV-2 detection in critical areas, their manual nature limits scalability and suitability for large-scale testing schemes. The Elecsys® SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay allows antigen immunoassays to be carried out on fully automated high-throughput serology platforms. METHODS: A total of 3139 nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were collected at 3 different testing sites in Germany. Swab samples were pre-characterized by reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and consecutively subjected to the antigen immunoassay on either the cobas e 411 or cobas e 801 analyzer. RESULTS: Of the tested respiratory samples, 392 were PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Median concentration was 2.95 × 104 (interquartile range [IQR] 5.1 × 102-3.5 × 106) copies/ml. Overall sensitivity and specificity of the antigen immunoassay were 60.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.2-65.1) and 99.9% (95% CI 99.6-100.0), respectively. A 93.7% (95% CI 89.7-96.5) sensitivity was achieved at a viral RNA concentration ≥ 104 copies/ml (~ cycle threshold [Ct] value < 29.9). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay reliably detected patient samples with viral loads ≥ 10,000 copies/ml. It thus represents a viable high-throughput alternative for screening of patients or in situations where PCR testing is not readily available.
RESUMEN
Expected values for estradiol (E2), luteinizing hormone (LH), and progesterone determined in serum allow accurate assessment of menstrual cycle phase. Automated immunoassays demonstrate variable degrees of bias, emphasizing the need to establish method-specific reference values. We therefore established method-specific reference intervals for the Elecsys® LH assay and new generation Elecsys Estradiol III and Progesterone III assays (cobas e 801 analyzer) in 85 apparently healthy women aged 22-37 (US)/18-37 (EU) years over one natural menstrual cycle. Cycle length and day of ovulation were standardized; phases were defined by LH surge and/or progesterone/E2 levels. Median (5th-95th percentile) concentrations (follicular/ovulation/luteal) were E2: 198 âpmol/L (114-332), 757 âpmol/L (222-1959) and 412 âpmol/L (222-854); LH: 7.14 IU/L (4.78-13.2), 22.6 IU/L (8.11-72.7) and 6.24 IU/L (2.73-13.1); progesterone: 0.212 ânmol/L (0.159-0.616), 1.81 ânmol/L (0.175-13.2) and 28.8 ânmol/L (13.1-46.3). Sub-phase (early/intermediate/late) reference values were also determined for follicular and luteal phases. This multicenter study established reliable, method-specific E2, LH and progesterone reference values that could assist clinical decision-making in women with fertility disorders and monitoring of natural cycles in assisted reproductive treatment.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: Specificity was evaluated using serum/plasma samples from blood donors and routine diagnostic specimens collected before September 2019 (i.e., presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies); sensitivity was evaluated using samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Method comparison was performed versus commercially available assays. RESULTS: Overall specificity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (n = 9575) was 99.85% (95% CI 99.75-99.92): blood donors (n = 6714; 99.82%), routine diagnostic specimens (n = 2861; 99.93%), pregnant women (n = 2256; 99.91%), paediatric samples (n = 205; 100.00%). The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated significantly higher specificity versus LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.71% vs. 98.48%), EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 94.87%), ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (100.00% vs. 87.32%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% vs. 99.58%) assays, and comparable specificity to ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.75% vs. 99.65%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 100.00%) assays. Overall sensitivity for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay samples drawn at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation (n = 219) was 93.61% (95% CI 89.51-96.46). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay versus EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.32% vs. 95.16%) and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.81% vs. 87.34%) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay showed significantly lower sensitivity versus ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (85.19% vs. 95.06%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (86.25% vs. 93.75%) assays, but significantly higher sensitivity versus the iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay (86.25% vs. 33.75%). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated very high specificity and high sensitivity in samples collected at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting its use to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.