Remote Fingerstick Blood Collection for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibody Testing.

The rapid worldwide spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has propelled the rapid development of serologic tests that can detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These have been used for studying the prevalence and spread of infection in different populations, and helping establish a recent diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and will likely be used to confirm humoral immunity after infection or vaccination. However, nearly all lab-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays require a serum sample from venous blood draw, limiting their applications and scalability. Here, we present a method that enables large-scale SARS-CoV-2 serologic studies by combining self or office collection of fingerprick blood with a volumetric absorptive microsampling device (Mitra, Neoteryx LLC) with a high-throughput electrochemiluminescence-based SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay (Roche Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics Inc) that is emergency use authorization approved for use on serum samples and widely used by clinical laboratories around the world. We found that the Roche Elecsys assay has a high dynamic range that allows for accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples diluted 1:20 as well as contrived dried blood extracts. Extracts of dried blood from Mitra devices acquired in a community seroprevalence study showed near identical sensitivity and specificity in detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies compared with neat sera using predefined thresholds for each specimen type. Overall, this study affirms the use of Mitra dried blood collection device with the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay for remote or at-home testing as well as large-scale community seroprevalence studies.

Garcia-Beltran WF ，Miller TE ，Kirkpatrick G ，Nixon A ，Astudillo MG ，Yang D ，Mahanta LM ，Murali M ，Dighe AS ，Lennerz J ，Thierauf J ，Naranbhai V ，Iafrate AJ ... -  《-》

Head-to-head comparison of two rapid high-throughput automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassays targeting total antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein and spike protein receptor binding domain.

Accurate anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decisions. The first manufacturer-independent head-to-head comparison of two rapid high-throughput automated electrochemiluminescence double-antigen sandwich immunoassays targeting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against two different viral proteins, Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Elecsys-N) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Elecsys-S) (Roche Diagnostics), was performed in a routine setting during the exponential growth phase of the epidemic's second wave. The diagnostic specificity of Elecsys-N and Elecsys-S was initially evaluated on a panel of 572 pre-COVID-19 samples, showing 100 % specificity of both assays. Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S head-to-head comparison used 3,416 consecutive blood samples from individuals that were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 within commercial out-of-pocket serologic testing. Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S head-to-head comparison showed overall agreement of 98.68 % (3,371/3,416; 95 % CI, 98.23-99.03 %), positive agreement of 95.16 % (884/929; 95 % CI, 93.52-96.41 %), and a high kappa value of 0.996 (95 % CI, 0.956-0.976). Previous SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity was identified in 14/24 (58.3 %) Elecsys-N negative/Elecsys-S positive individuals and in 4/21 (19.0 %) Elecsys-N positive/Elecsys-S negative individuals. The first Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S head-to-head comparison showed excellent agreement of two highly specific and rapid high-throughput automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays. An important question is whether laboratories offering two different antibody assays could benefit from combining the assays; if so, should use be concomitant or sequential-and, in the latter case, in which order? Based on our results, we favor concomitant over sequential Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S use when testing individuals for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in high-incidence settings; for example, during the exponential or stationary growth phase of the COVID-19 epidemic.

Poljak M ，Oštrbenk Valenčak A ，Štamol T ，Seme K ... -  《-》

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in Health Care Workers: A Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Three Commercially Available Antibody Assays.

Allen N ，Brady M ，Carrion Martin AI ，Domegan L ，Walsh C ，Houlihan E ，Kerr C ，Doherty L ，King J ，Doheny M ，Griffin D ，Molloy M ，Dunne J ，Crowley V ，Holmes P ，Keogh E ，Naughton S ，Kelly M ，O'Rourke F ，Lynagh Y ，Crowley B ，de Gascun C ，Holder P ，Bergin C ，Fleming C ，Ni Riain U ，Conlon N ，PRECISE Study Steering Group ... -  《Microbiology Spectrum》

Comparison of four high-throughput, automated immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Oakey J ，Haslam S ，Brown A ，Eglin J ，Houghton B ，Singleton D ... -  《-》

Evaluation of four commercial, fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests suggests a revision of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay.

Serological tests detect antibodies against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the ongoing coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Independent external clinical validation of performance characteristics is of paramount importance. Four fully automated assays, Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total (COV2T) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (COV2G) were evaluated using 350 pre-pandemic samples and 700 samples from 245 COVID-19 patients (158 hospitalized, 87 outpatients). All tests showed very high diagnostic specificity. Sensitivities in samples collected at least 14 days after disease onset were slightly lower than manufacturers' claims for Roche (93.0%), Abbott (90.8%), and Siemens COV2T (90.3%), and distinctly lower for Siemens COV2G (78.8%). Concordantly negative results were enriched for immunocompromised patients. ROC curve analyses suggest a lowering of the cut-off index for the Siemens COV2G assay. Finally, the combination of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays is feasible when considering borderline reactive results. Thorough on-site evaluation of commercially available serologic tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 remains imperative for laboratories. The potentially impaired sensitivity of the Siemens COV2G necessitates a switch to the company's newly filed SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay for follow-up studies. A combination of tests could be considered in clinical practice.

Irsara C ，Egger AE ，Prokop W ，Nairz M ，Loacker L ，Sahanic S ，Pizzini A ，Sonnweber T ，Mayer W ，Schennach H ，Loeffler-Ragg J ，Bellmann-Weiler R ，Tancevski I ，Weiss G ，Anliker M ，Griesmacher A ，Hoermann G ... -  《-》