RESUMO
Oral fluid (hereafter saliva) offers a non-invasive sampling method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, data comparing performance of salivary tests against commercially-available serologic and neutralizing antibody (nAb) assays are lacking. This study compared the performance of a multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay targeting antibodies to nucleocapsid (N), receptor binding domain (RBD) and spike (S) antigens to three commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 serology enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Ortho Vitros, Euroimmun, and BioRad) and nAb. Paired saliva and plasma samples were collected from 101 eligible COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors >14 days since PCR+ confirmed diagnosis. Concordance was evaluated using positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreement, overall percent agreement (PA), and Cohens kappa coefficient. The range between salivary and plasma EIAs for SARS-CoV-2-specific N was PPA: 54.4-92.1% and NPA: 69.2-91.7%, for RBD was PPA: 89.9-100% and NPA: 50.0-84.6%, and for S was PPA: 50.6-96.6% and NPA: 50.0-100%. Compared to a plasma nAb assay, the multiplex salivary assay PPA ranged from 62.3% (N) and 98.6% (RBD) and NPA ranged from 18.8% (RBD) to 96.9% (S). Combinations of N, RBD, and S and a summary algorithmic index of all three (N/RBD/S) in saliva produced ranges of PPA: 87.6-98.9% and NPA: 50-91.7% with the three EIAs and ranges of PPA: 88.4-98.6% and NPA: 21.9-34.4% with the nAb assay. A multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay demonstrated comparable performance to three commercially-available plasma EIAs and a nAb assay, and may be a viable alternative to assist in screening CCP donors and monitoring population-based seroprevalence and vaccine antibody response.
RESUMO
BACKGROUNDIn 2020, U.S schools closed due to SARS-CoV-2 but their role in transmission was unknown. In fall 2020, national guidance for reopening omitted testing or screening recommendations. We report the experience of 2 large independent K-12 schools (School-A and School-B) that implemented an array of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation strategies that included periodic universal testing. METHODSSARS-CoV-2 was identified through periodic universal PCR testing, self-reporting of tests conducted outside school, and contact tracing. Schools implemented behavioral and structural mitigation measures, including mandatory masks, classroom disinfecting, and social distancing. RESULTSOver the fall semester, School-A identified 112 cases in 2320 students and staff; School-B identified 25 cases (2.0%) in 1200 students and staff. Most cases were asymptomatic and none required hospitalization. Of 69 traceable introductions, 63(91%) were not associated with school-based transmission, 59 cases (54%) occurred in the 2 weeks post-Thanksgiving. In 6/7 clusters, clear noncompliance with mitigation protocols was found. The largest outbreak had 28 identified cases and was traced to an off-campus party. There was no transmission from students to staff. CONCLUSIONSAlthough school-age children can contract and transmit SARS-CoV-2, rates of COVID-19 infection related to in-person education were significantly lower than those in the surrounding community. However, social activities among students outside of school undermined those measures and should be discouraged, perhaps with behavioral contracts, to ensure the safety of school communities. In addition, introduction risks were highest following extended school breaks. These risks may be mitigated with voluntary quarantines and surveillance testing prior to re-opening.
