RESUMEN
In the context of an unprecedented shortage of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) or sample transport media during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, alternative methods for sample collection are needed. To address this need, we validated a cell culture medium as a viral transport medium, and compared the analytical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR in nasal wash (NW), oropharyngeal swab (OPS) and NPS specimens. Both the clinical and analytical sensitivity were comparable in these three sample types. OPS and NW specimens may therefore represent suitable alternatives to NPS for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
RESUMEN
BackgroundViral shedding patterns and its correlation with the immune responses of mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients are still poorly characterized. MethodsWe enrolled the first five COVID-19 patients quarantined in our institution; none received immunomodulatory treatment. We monitored shedding of viral RNA and infectious virus by RT-PCR and cell culture from the upper respiratory tract, and characterized the kinetics of systemic innate and adaptive immune responses. ResultsDespite mild clinical disease, high viral loads and shedding of infectious virus were observed from the respiratory tract, with isolation of infectious virus and prolonged positivity by PCR up to day 7 and 19 post onset of symptoms, respectively. Robust innate responses characterized by an increase in activated CD14+CD16+ monocytes and cytokine responses were observed as early as 2 days after symptoms onset. Cellular and humoral SARS-CoV-2 specific adaptive responses were detectable in all patients. ConclusionInfectious virus shedding was limited to the first week of symptom onset in mild cases. A strong innate response, characterized by the mobilization of activated monocytes during the first days of infection, as well as SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies were detectable, even in patients with mild disease. SummaryWe describe viral and immune profiles of the first five SARS-CoV-2 patients in our institution, showing high viral loads and infectious viral shedding in early acute disease. Mild patients mount an innate response sufficient for viral control and specific immunity.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19. MethodsIn this unmatched (1:1) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 176 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay. ResultsCOVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.992 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.986-0.996) and 0.977 (95%CI: 0.963-0.990), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.008). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 1.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 98-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 97-100). A 0.5 cut-off displayed a 97% sensitivity (95%CI: 93-99) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 93-99). Substituting these thresholds for the manufacturers, improved assay performance, leaving 12% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.5-1.5. ConclusionsThe Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.
