Humoral response to spike S1 and S2 and nucleocapsid proteins on microarray after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Many aspects of the humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), such as its role in protection after natural infection, are still unclear. We evaluated IgA and IgG response to spike subunits 1 and 2 (S1 and S2) and Nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-COV-2 in serum samples of 109 volunteers with viral RNA detected or seroconversion with different clinical evolution (asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe coronavirus disease 2019), using the ViraChip® Test Kit. We observed that the quantification of antibodies to all antigens had a positive correlation to disease severity, which was strongly associated with the presence of comorbidities. Seroreversion was not uncommon even during the short (median of 77 days) observation, occurring in 15% of mild-asymptomatic cases at a median of 55 days for IgG and 46 days for IgA. The time to reach the maximal antibody response did not differ significantly among recovered and deceased volunteers. Our study illustrated the dynamic of anti-S1, anti-N, and anti-S2 IgA and IgG antibodies, and suggests that high production of IgG and IgA does not guarantee protection to disease severity and that functional responses that have been studied by other groups, such as antibody avidity, need further attention.

Inhibition of receptor-binding domain-ACE2 interaction after two doses of Sinovac's CoronaVac or AstraZeneca/Oxford's AZD1222 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Practical laboratory proxies that correlate to vaccine efficacy may facilitate trials, identify nonresponders, and inform about boosting strategies. Among clinical and laboratory markers, assays that evaluate antibodies that inhibit receptor-binding domain (RBD) ligation to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 receptor (receptor-binding inhibition [RBI]) may provide a surrogate for viral neutralization assays. We evaluated RBI before and after a median of 34 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 33-40) of the second dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Sinovac's CoronaVac (CN) or AstraZeneca/Oxford's AZD1222 (AZ) vaccines in 166 individuals. Both vaccines elicited high inhibitory titers in most subjects, 95% (158/166), with signal inhibition above 30% and 89% (127/143) with more than fourfold increase from prevaccination titers, but titers tend to decrease over time. Both postvaccination inhibitory titers (95%, IQR 85%-97% for AZ vs. 79%, IQR 60%-96% for CN, p = 0.004) and pre/post-titer increase (AZ 76%, IQR 51%-86% for AZ vs. 47%, IQR 24%-67% for CN, p < 0.0001) were higher among AZ vaccinees. Previous serological reactivity due to natural infection was associated with high prevaccination signal inhibition titers. The study documents a robust antibody response capable of interfering with RBD-angiotensin-converting enzyme binding. Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence in these populations is necessary to assess its association to protection and its duration.

Humoral response to spike S1 and S2 and nucleocapsidproteins on microarray after SARS­CoV­2 infection

Many aspects of the humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syn-drome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2), such as its role in protection after natural in-fection, are still unclear. We evaluated IgA and IgG response to spike subunits 1 and2 (S1 and S2) and Nucleocapsid proteins of SARS­COV­2 in serum samples of 109volunteers with viral RNA detected or seroconversion with different clinical evolu-tion (asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe coronavirus disease 2019), using theViraChip®Test Kit. We observed that the quantification of antibodies to all antigenshad a positive correlation to disease severity, which was strongly associated with thepresence of comorbidities. Seroreversion was not uncommon even during the short(median of 77 days) observation, occurring in 15% of mild­asymptomatic cases at amedian of 55 days for IgG and 46 days for IgA. The time to reach the maximalantibody response did not differ significantly among recovered and deceased vo-lunteers. Our study illustrated the dynamic of anti­S1, anti­N, and anti­S2 IgA andIgG antibodies, and suggests that high production of IgG and IgA does not guaranteeprotection to disease severity and that functional responses that have been studiedby other groups, such as antibody avidity, need further attention. (AU)

Avaliação do desempenho de teste rápido e de dois imunoensaios automatizados para Sars-CoV-2 / Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays

Introdução: Em função da urgência e demanda de uma resposta à pandemia do novo coronavírus (Covid-19), vários testes de detecção de anticorpos para a síndrome respiratória aguda grave do coronavírus 2 (Sars-CoV-2) têm sido desenvolvidos. Objetivo: Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o desempenho do teste rápido utilizado em um inquérito epidemiológico para Sars-CoV-2 em comparação com outros ensaios sorológicos. Métodos: Foram avaliadas 86 amostras de soro em três ensaios sorológicos: um imunoensaio de fluxo lateral ­ Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (TRW) ­ e dois imunoensaios de quimioluminescência: Elecsys anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA) e Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Resultados: As sensibilidades diagnósticas estimadas dos testes sorológicos na avaliação dessas amostras foram: TRW 59% [95% intervalo de confiança (IC) 43,4%-72,9%], ECLIA 66,7% (51%-79,4%) e CMIA-IgG 61,5% (47,1%-73%). Enquanto isso, a especificidade diagnóstica estimada para TRW foi 78,7% (95% CI 65,1%-88%), ECLIA 72,3% (58,2%-83,1%) e CMIA-IgG 76,6% (74%-95,5%). Os valores de sensibilidade e especificidade foram inferiores aos afirmados pelos fabricantes. Embora 16,2% (14/86) dos resultados tenham sido discordantes entre os três ensaios serológicos para Sars-CoV-2, o grau de concordância pelo índice Kappa foi adequado: TRW/CMIA-IgG [0,757 (95% IC 0,615-0,899)], TRW/ECLIA [0,715 (0,565-0,864)] e ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0,858 (0,748-0,968)]. Conclusão: O teste sorológico pode ser uma ferramenta diagnóstica útil, o que reforça sua avaliação criteriosa, bem como o momento correto de sua utilização. (AU)

Introduction: Due to urgency and demand of a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, numerous Sars-CoV-2 immunoassays have been rapidly developed. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the performance of rapid Sars-CoV-2 antibody test in comparison to high-throughput serological assays. Methods: A total of 86 serum samples were evaluated in the three assays: a lateral flow immunoassay ­ Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (WRT) ­ and two chemiluminescence immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA), and Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Results: The estimated diagnostic sensitivities of serological tests in the evaluation of serum samples from the epidemiological survey were: WRT 59.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4%-72.9%], ECLIA 66.7% (51%-79.4%), and CMIA-IgG 61.5% (47.1%-73%). Meanwhile, the estimated diagnostic specificity was for WRT 78.7% (95% CI 65.1%-88%), ECLIA 72.3% (58.2%-83.1%), and CMIA-IgG 76.6% (74%-95.5%). The sensitivity and specificity values were lower than manufacturers' claimed. Although 16.2% (14/86) of serological results were discordant among the three Sars-CoV-2 serological assays, the degree of agreement by the kappa index was adequate: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0.757 (95% CI 0.615-0.899)], WRT/ECLIA [0.715 (0.565-0.864)], and ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0.858 (0.748-0.968)]. Conclusion: The serological testing may be a useful diagnostic tool, which reinforces its careful evaluation, and, as well as the correct time to use it. (AU)

Performance evaluation of a Sars-CoV-2 rapid test and two automated immunoassays / Avaliação do desempenho de teste rápido e de dois imunoensaios automatizados para Sars-CoV-2

ABSTRACT Introduction: Due to urgency and demand of a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, numerous Sars-CoV-2 immunoassays have been rapidly developed. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the performance of rapid Sars-CoV-2 antibody test in comparison to high-throughput serological assays. Methods: A total of 86 serum samples were evaluated in the three assays: a lateral flow immunoassay - Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (WRT) - and two chemiluminescence immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA), and Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Results: The estimated diagnostic sensitivities of serological tests in the evaluation of serum samples from the epidemiological survey were: WRT 59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4%-72.9%], ECLIA 66.7% (51%-79.4%), and CMIA-IgG 61.5% (47.1%-73%). Meanwhile, the estimated diagnostic specificity was for WRT 78.7% (95% CI 65.1%-88%), ECLIA 72.3% (58.2%-83.1%), and CMIA-IgG 76.6% (74%-95.5%). The sensitivity and specificity values were lower than manufacturers' claimed. Although 16.2% (14/86) of serological results were discordant among the three Sars-CoV-2 serological assays, the degree of agreement by the kappa index was adequate: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0.757 (95% CI 0.615-0.899)], WRT/ECLIA [0.715 (0.565-0.864)], and ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0.858 (0.748-0.968)]. Conclusion: The serological testing may be a useful diagnostic tool, which reinforces its careful evaluation, and, as well as the correct time to use it.

RESUMEN Introducción: Debido a la urgencia y la demanda de una respuesta a la pandemia de Covid-19, se han desarrollado rápidamente numerosos inmunoensayos del Sars-CoV-2. Objetivo: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar el rendimiento de la prueba rápida de anticuerpos contra el Sars-CoV-2 en comparación con los ensayos serológicos de alto rendimiento. Métodos: Se evaluaron un total de 86 muestras de suero en los tres ensayos: un inmunoensayo de flujo lateral - Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (TRW) - y dos inmunoensayos de quimioluminiscencia: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA) y Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Resultados: Las sensibilidades diagnósticas estimadas de las pruebas serológicas en la evaluación de muestras de suero de la encuesta epidemiológica fueron: WRT 59% [intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%: 43,4%-72,9%], ECLIA 66,7% (51%-79,4%) y CMIA-IgG 61,5% (47,1%-73%). Mientras tanto, la especificidad diagnóstica estimada fue para WRT 78,7% (95% CI 65,1%-88%), ECLIA 72,3% (58,2%-83,1%) y CMIA-IgG 76,6% (74%-95,5%). Los valores de sensibilidad y especificidad fueron más bajos que los declarados por los fabricantes. Aunque el 16,2% (14/86) de los resultados fueron discordantes entre los tres ensayos serológicos del Sars-CoV-2, el grado de concordancia del índice kappa fue adecuado: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0,757 (IC del 95%: 0,615-0,899)], WRT/ECLIA [0,715 (0,565-0,864)] y ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0,858 (0,748-0,968)]. Conclusión: La prueba serológica puede ser una herramienta diagnóstica útil, lo que refuerza su evaluación cuidadosa, así como el momento adecuado para usarla.

RESUMO Introdução: Em função da urgência e demanda de uma resposta à pandemia do novo coronavírus (Covid-19), vários testes de detecção de anticorpos para a síndrome respiratória aguda grave do coronavírus 2 (Sars-CoV-2) têm sido desenvolvidos. Objetivo: Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o desempenho do teste rápido utilizado em um inquérito epidemiológico para Sars-CoV-2 em comparação com outros ensaios sorológicos. Métodos: Foram avaliadas 86 amostras de soro em três ensaios sorológicos: um imunoensaio de fluxo lateral - Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (TRW) - e dois imunoensaios de quimioluminescência: Elecsys anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA) e Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Resultados: As sensibilidades diagnósticas estimadas dos testes sorológicos na avaliação dessas amostras foram: TRW 59% [95% intervalo de confiança (IC) 43,4%-72,9%], ECLIA 66,7% (51%-79,4%) e CMIA-IgG 61,5% (47,1%-73%). Enquanto isso, a especificidade diagnóstica estimada para TRW foi 78,7% (95% CI 65,1%-88%), ECLIA 72,3% (58,2%-83,1%) e CMIA-IgG 76,6% (74%-95,5%). Os valores de sensibilidade e especificidade foram inferiores aos afirmados pelos fabricantes. Embora 16,2% (14/86) dos resultados tenham sido discordantes entre os três ensaios serológicos para Sars-CoV-2, o grau de concordância pelo índice Kappa foi adequado: TRW/CMIA-IgG [0,757 (95% IC 0,615-0,899)], TRW/ECLIA [0,715 (0,565-0,864)] e ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0,858 (0,748-0,968)]. Conclusão: O teste sorológico pode ser uma ferramenta diagnóstica útil, o que reforça sua avaliação criteriosa, bem como o momento correto de sua utilização.