Evaluation of 11 SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests by using samples from patients with defined IgG antibody titers.

We evaluated the performance of 11 SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests using a reference set of heat-inactivated samples from 278 unexposed persons and 258 COVID-19 patients, some of whom contributed serial samples. The reference set included samples with a variation in SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers, as determined by an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA). The five evaluated rapid diagnostic tests had a specificity of 99.0% and a sensitivity that ranged from 56.3 to 81.6% and decreased with low IFA IgG titers. The specificity was > 99% for five out of six platform-based tests, and when assessed using samples collected ≥ 22 days after symptom onset, two assays had a sensitivity of > 96%. These two assays also detected samples with low IFA titers more frequently than the other assays. In conclusion, the evaluated antibody tests showed a heterogeneity in their performances and only a few tests performed well with samples having low IFA IgG titers, an important aspect for diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.

Assessment of biorisk management systems in high containment laboratories, 18 countries in Europe, 2016 and 2017.

Europe-wide activities to improve biosafety and biosecurity performed within the frameworks of the European Union (EU)-funded Joint Actions EMERGE and QUANDHIP led to the development of an Integrated European Checklist for Laboratory Biorisk Management (ECL).To better understand different approaches shaping biorisk management (BRM) systems on an operational level in high containment laboratories, the ECL was used to map the implementation of BRM in 32 high containment laboratories in 18 countries in Europe. The results suggest that the BRM elements referring to standard microbiological working practices and the handling of infectious material were fulfilled particularly well. The elements safety exercises involving internal and external emergency responders, and appropriate decommissioning plans were not fulfilled particularly well. BRM in Biosafety Level (BSL) 4 laboratories handling Risk Group (RG) 4 viruses appear to vary among each other less than BSL3 laboratories handling RG 3 bacteria. It is important to agree on comparable regulations in Europe as high containment laboratories are indispensable for a safe, quick and effective response to public health threats. As high containment laboratories may also present a public health risk it is crucial to have robust BRM on organisational and operational levels.

Harmonization of European laboratory response networks by implementing CWA 15793: use of a gap analysis and an "insider" exercise as tools.

Laboratory response networks (LRNs) have been established for security reasons in several countries including the Netherlands, France, and Sweden. LRNs function in these countries as a preparedness measure for a coordinated diagnostic response capability in case of a bioterrorism incident or other biocrimes. Generally, these LRNs are organized on a national level. The EU project AniBioThreat has identified the need for an integrated European LRN to strengthen preparedness against animal bioterrorism. One task of the AniBioThreat project is to suggest a plan to implement laboratory biorisk management CWA 15793:2011 (CWA 15793), a management system built on the principle of continual improvement through the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. The implementation of CWA 15793 can facilitate trust and credibility in a future European LRN and is an assurance that the work done at the laboratories is performed in a structured way with continuous improvements. As a first step, a gap analysis was performed to establish the current compliance status of biosafety and laboratory biosecurity management with CWA 15793 in 5 AniBioThreat partner institutes in France (ANSES), the Netherlands (CVI and RIVM), and Sweden (SMI and SVA). All 5 partners are national and/or international laboratory reference institutes in the field of public or animal health and possess high-containment laboratories and animal facilities. The gap analysis showed that the participating institutes already have robust biorisk management programs in place, but several gaps were identified that need to be addressed. Despite differences between the participating institutes in their compliance status, these variations are not significant. Biorisk management exercises also have been identified as a useful tool to control compliance status and thereby implementation of CWA 15793. An exercise concerning an insider threat and loss of a biological agent was performed at SVA in the AniBioThreat project to evaluate implementation of the contingency plans and as an activity in the implementation process of CWA 15793. The outcome of the exercise was perceived as very useful, and improvements to enhance biorisk preparedness were identified. Gap analyses and exercises are important, useful activities to facilitate implementation of CWA 15793. The PDCA cycle will enforce a structured way to work, with continual improvements concerning biorisk management activities. Based on the activities in the AniBioThreat project, the following requirements are suggested to promote implementation: support from the top management of the organizations, knowledge about CWA 15793, a compliance audit checklist and gap analysis, training and exercises, networking in LRNs and other networks, and interinstitutional audits. Implementation of CWA 15793 at each institute would strengthen the European animal bioterrorism response capabilities by establishing a well-prepared LRN.