Performance evaluation of novel fluorescent-based lateral immune flow assay (LIFA) for rapid detection and quantification of total anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD binding antibodies in infected individuals.

The vast majority of the commercially available LFIA is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies qualitatively. Recently, a novel fluorescence-based LIFA test was developed for quantitative measurement of the total binding antibody units (BAU/mL) against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-RBD). To evaluate the performance of the fluorescence LIFA Finecare 2019-nCoV S-RBD test along with its reader (Model No.: FS-113). Plasma from 150 RT-PCR confirmed-positive individuals and 100 pre-pandemic samples were tested by FinCare to access sensitivity and specificity. For qualitative and quantitative validation of the FinCar measurements, the BAU/mL results of FinCare were compared with results of two reference assays: the surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT, GenScript, USA), and the VIDAS®3 automated assay (BioMérieux, France). Finecare showed 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to PCR. Cohen's Kappa statistic denoted moderate and excellent agreement with sVNT and VIDAS®3, ranging from 0.557 (95% CI: 0.32-0.78) to 0.731 (95% CI: 0.51-0.95), respectively. A strong correlation was observed between Finecare/sVNT (r=0.7, p<0.0001) and Finecare/VIDAS®3 (r=0.8, p<0.0001). Finecare is a reliable assay and can be used as a surrogate to assess binding and neutralizing antibody response post-infection or vaccination, particularly in none or small laboratory settings

Low risk of serological cross-reactivity between the dengue virus and SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using advanced detection assays.

Several studies have reported serological cross-reactivity of the immune responses between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV. Most of the available studies are based on the point of care (POC) rapid testing kits. However, some rapid test kits have low specificity and can generate false positives. Hence, we aimed to investigate the potential serological cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and DENV IgG antibodies using advanced assays including chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and ELISA test. A total of 90 DENV-IgG-ELISA positive and 90 negative pre-pandemic sera were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG using the automated CL-900i CLIA assay. Furthermore, a total of 91 SARS-CoV-2-IgG-CLIA positive and 91 negative post-pandemic sera were tested for anti-DENV-IgG using the Novalisa ELISA assay. The DENV-IgG positive sera resulted in five positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. Similarly, the DENV-IgG negative sera also resulted in five positives and 85 negatives for SARS-CoV-2-IgG. No statistically significant difference in specificity between the DENV-IgG positive and DENV-IgG negative sera was found (p-value=1.00). The SARS-CoV-2-IgG positive sera displayed 43 positives, 47 negatives, and one equivocal for DENV-IgG. Whereas the SARS-CoV-2-IgG negative sera resulted in 50 positives, 40 negatives, and one equivocal for DENV-IgG. No statistically significant difference in the proportion that is DENV-IgG positive between the SARS-CoV-2-IgG positive and SARS-CoV-2-IgG negative sera (p-value=0.58). In conclusion, there is a low risk of serological cross-reactivity between the DENV, and SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies when using advanced detection assays.  .L.J.A. acknowledges the support of the Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Biomathematics Research Core, both at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar. This work was made possible by Grant Nos. RRC-2-032 and UREP19-013-3-001 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors. In addition, G.K.N. would also like to acknowledge funds from Qatar University’s internal Grant QUERG-CMED-2020-2

Assessment of Indoor Air Quality of Four Primary Health Care Centers in Qatar.

Airborne bacteria pose a potential risk to human health upon inhalation in the indoor environments of health care facilities. Airborne bacteria may originate from various sources, including patients, workers, and daily visitors. Hence, this study investigates the quantity, size, and identification of airborne bacteria indoors and outdoors of four Primary Health Care Centers (PHCC) in Doha, Qatar. Air samples were collected from the lobby, triage room, and outside environment of the centers, including, Qatar University (QU-HC), Al-Rayyan (AR-HC), Umm-Ghuwailina (UG-HC), and Old Airport (OA-HC) between August 2020 and March 2021, throughout both the hot and the cold seasons. Samples were collected using an Anderson six-stage cascade impactor. The mean of the total colony-forming units was calculated per cubic meter of air (CFU/m). QU-HC had the lowest mean of total bacterial count compared with other centers in the indoor and outdoor areas with 100.4 and 99.6 CFU/m, respectively. In contrast, AR-HC had the highest level, with 459 CFU/m indoors, while OA-HC recorded the highest bacterial concentration of the outdoor areas with a total mean 377 CFU/m. In addition, 16S rRNA sequencing was performed for genera identification. , , , and were the four most frequently identified bacterial genera in this study. The abundance of airborne bacteria in the four health centers was higher in the cold season. About 46% of the total airborne bacterial count for three PHCC centers exceeded 300 CFU/m, making them uncompliant with the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendation for indoor settings. Consequently, an IAQ standards should be shaped to establish a baseline for measuring air pollution in Qatar. Additionally, it is crucial to understand seasonal fluctuations better so that hospitals can avoid rising and spreading infection peaks.This research was funded partially by Primary Health Care Corporation, grant number PHCC/RC/18/06/002

Evaluation of commercially available fully automated and ELISA-based assays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies

Rapid and accurate measurement of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2)-specific neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) is paramount for monitoring immunity in infected and vaccinated subjects. The current gold standard relies on pseudovirus neutralization tests which require sophisticated skills and facilities. Alternatively, recent competitive immunoassays measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAbs are proposed as a quick and commercially available surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Here, we report the performance evaluation of three sVNTs, including two ELISA-based assays and an automated bead-based immunoassay for detecting nAbs against SARS-CoV-2. The performance of three sVNTs, including GenScript cPass, Dynamiker, and Mindray NTAb was assessed in samples collected from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (n = 160), COVID-19 vaccinated individuals (n = 163), and pre-pandemic controls (n = 70). Samples were collected from infected patients and vaccinated individuals 2–24 weeks after symptoms onset or second dose administration. Correlation analysis with pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) and immunoassays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies was performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was generated to assess the optimal threshold for detecting nAbs by each assay. All three sVNTs showed an excellent performance in terms of specificity (100%) and sensitivity (100%, 97.0%, and 97.1% for GenScript, Dynamiker, and Mindray, respectively) in samples collected from vaccinated subjects. GenScript demonstrated the strongest correlation with pVNT (r = 0.743, R2 = 0.552), followed by Mindray (r = 0.718, R2 = 0.515) and Dynamiker (r = 0.608, R2 = 0.369). Correlation with anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies was variable, but the strongest correlations were observed between anti-RBD IgG antibodies and Mindray (r = 0.952, R2 = 0.907). ROC curve analyses demonstrated excellent performance for all three sVNT assays in both groups, with an AUC ranging between 0.99 and 1.0 (p < 0.0001). Also, it was shown that the manufacturer's recommended cutoff values could be modified based on the tested cohort without significantly affecting the sVNT performance. The sVNT provides a rapid, low-cost, and scalable alternative to conventional neutralization assays for measuring and expanding nAbs testing across various research and clinical settings. Also, it could aid in evaluating actual protective immunity at the population level and assessing vaccine effectiveness to lay a foundation for boosters' requirements.Funding was provided by Qatar Foundation (Grant number: UREP28-173-3-057), Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China, Qatar University (Grant number: RRC-2-032)

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are higher but decline faster in mRNA vaccinees compared to individuals with natural infection.

Waning protection against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants by pre-existing antibodies elicited due to current vaccination or natural infection is a global concern. Whether this is due to the waning of immunity to SARS-COV-2 remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the dynamics of antibody isotype responses among vaccinated naïve (VN) and naturally infected (NI) individuals. We followed up antibody levels in COVID-19 mRNA-vaccinated subjects without prior infection (VN, n = 100) in two phases: phase-I (P-I) at ~ 1.4 and phase-II (P-II) at ~ 5.3 months. Antibody levels were compared to those of unvaccinated and naturally infected subjects (NI, n = 40) at ~ 1.7 (P-1) and 5.2 (P-II) months post-infection. Neutralizing antibodies (NTAb), anti-S-RBD-IgG, -IgM, and anti-S-IgA isotypes were measured. The VN group elicited significantly greater antibody responses (p < 0.001) than the NI group at P-I, except for IgM. In the VN group, a significant waning in antibody response was observed in all isotypes. There was about ~ a 4-fold decline in NTAb levels (p < 0.001), anti-S-RBD-IgG (~5-folds, p < 0.001), anti-S-RBD-IgM (~6-folds, p < 0.001), and anti-S1-IgA (2-folds, p < 0.001). In the NI group, a significant but less steady decline was notable in S-RBD-IgM (~2-folds, p < 0.001), and a much smaller but significant difference in NTAb (<2-folds, p < 0.001) anti-S-RBD IgG (<2-folds, p = 0.005). Unlike the VN group, the NI group mounted a lasting anti-S1-IgA response with no significant decline. Anti-S1-IgA, which were ~ 3 folds higher in VN subjects compared to NI in P-1 (p < 0.001), dropped to almost the same levels, with no significant difference observed between the two groups in P-II. While double-dose mRNA vaccination boosted antibody levels, vaccinated individuals' 'boost' was relatively short-lived.This work was made possible by WHO grant numbers COVID-19-22-43 and UREP28–173–3-057 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors

Diagnostic Efficiency of Three Fully Automated Serology Assays and Their Correlation with a Novel Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-COV-2 Individuals

Abstract: To support the deployment of serology assays for population screening during the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared the performance of three fully automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays: Mindray CL-900i® (target: spike [S] and nucleocapsid [N]), BioMérieux VIDAS®3 (target: receptor-binding domain [RBD]) and Diasorin LIAISON®XL (target: S1 and S2 subunits). A total of 111 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR- positive samples collected at ≥ 21 days post symptom onset, and 127 prepandemic control samples were included. Diagnostic performance was assessed in correlation to RT-PCR and a surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT). Moreover, cross-reactivity with other viral antibodies was investigated. Compared to RT-PCR, LIAISON®XL showed the highest overall specificity (100%), followed by VIDAS®3 (98.4%) and CL-900i® (95.3%). The highest sensitivity was demonstrated by CL-900i® (90.1%), followed by VIDAS®3 (88.3%) and LIAISON®XL (85.6%). The sensitivity of all assays was higher in symptomatic patients (91.1–98.2%) compared to asymptomatic patients (78.4–80.4%). In correlation to sVNT, all assays showed excellent sensitivities (92.2–96.1%). In addition, VIDAS®3 demonstrated the best correlation (r = 0.75) with the sVNT. The present study provides insights on the performance of three fully automated assays, which could help diagnostic laboratories in the choice of a particular assay according to the intended us

Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2: A Cohort Study in Qatar's Primary Care Settings.

Globally, countries are rolling out Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quarantine policies and vaccination programs. Research studies are needed in helping understand the likelihood of acquired immunity to reinfection and identify priority groups for vaccination to inform them. This study aimed to assess period prevalence and longitudinal changes in antibody levels after SARS-CoV-2 infection in Qatari primary care settings. A cohort study design with 2 data collection phases was undertaken-Phase 1 (conducted in July 2020) and Phase 2 (conducted in October 2020). A stratified random sampling technique by age, gender and nationality was utilized to identify the study sample. The total sample size required for the study was estimated to be 2102. Participants were invited to an appointment where they were administered a questionnaire and provided samples for polymerase chain reaction and Immunoglobulin G immunoassay tests. A total of 943 individuals participated in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. In this cohort, seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was found to be 12% (N = 113) in Phase 1 and 17.2% (N = 162) in Phase 2. Of the 113 participants who were seropositive in Phase 1, 38.1% (CI 29.5-47.2%, N = 43) had a reduction, 54.9% (CI 45.7-63.8%, N = 62) had no change, and 7.1% (CI 3.4-12.9%, N = 8) had an increase in IgG titer in Phase 2. All (N = 18) participants aged 10 to 17 years retained their antibodies. The proportion of men who retained their antibodies was slightly higher compared to women-92.5% (N = 74) and 87.9% (N = 29) respectively. Similarly, symptomatic individuals (97.8%; N = 45) had a higher antibody retention compared with asymptomatic individuals (86.4%; N = 57). This study provides preliminary information on the longitudinal changes in antibody levels after SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings will help inform quarantine policies and vaccination programs.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by PHCC (PHCCDCR202005047).The funders had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or writing

Performance evaluation of five ELISA kits for detecting anti-SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies

ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the performances of five commercial ELISA assays (EDI, AnshLabs, Dia.Pro, NovaTec, and Lionex) for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Methods70 negative control samples (collected before the COVID-19 pandemic) and samples from 101 RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected at different time points from symptoms onset: ≤7, 8-14, and >14 days) were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity, agreement, positive and negative predictive values of each assay with RT-PCR. A concordance assessment between the five assays was also conducted. Cross-reactivity with other HCoV, non-HCoV respiratory viruses, non-respiratory viruses, and nuclear antigens was investigated. ResultsLionex showed the highest specificity (98.6%, 95%CI: 92.3-99.8), followed by EDI and Dia.Pro (97.1%, 95%CI: 90.2-99.2), NovaTec (85.7%, 95%CI: 75.7-92.1), then AnshLabs (75.7%, 95%CI: 64.5-84.2). All ELISA kits cross-reacted with one anti-MERS IgG positive sample except Lionex. The sensitivity was low during the early stages of the disease but improved over time. After 14 days from symptoms onset, Lionex and NovaTec showed the highest sensitivity at 87.9% (95%CI: 72.7-95.2) and 86.4% (95%CI: 78.5-91.7), respectively. The agreement with RT-PCR results based on Cohen’s kappa was as follows: Lionex (0.89)> NovaTec (0.70)> Dia.Pro (0.69)> AnshLabs (0.63)> EDI (0.55). ConclusionThe Lionex ELISA, which measures antibodies solely to the S1 protein, demonstrated the best performance.This work was made possible by grant No. RRC-2-032 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors. GKN would like to acknowledge funds from Qatar University's internal grant QUERG-CMED-2020-2

Are commercial antibody assays substantially underestimating SARS-CoV-2 ever infection? An analysis on a population-based sample in a high exposure setting

AbstractBackgroundPerformance of three automated commercial serological IgG-based assays was investigated for assessing SARS-CoV-2 ever (past or current) infection in a population-based sample in a high exposure setting.MethodsPCR and serological testing was performed on 394 individuals.ResultsSARS-CoV-2-IgG seroprevalence was 42.9% (95% CI 38.1%-47.8%), 40.6% (95% CI 35.9%-45.5%), and 42.4% (95% CI 37.6%-47.3%) using the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively. Between the three assays, overall, positive, and negative percent agreements ranged between 93.2%-95.7%, 89.3%-92.8%, and 93.8%-97.8%, respectively; Cohen kappa statistic ranged from 0.86-0.91; and 35 specimens (8.9%) showed discordant results. Among all individuals, 12.5% (95% CI 9.6%-16.1%) had current infection, as assessed by PCR. Of these, only 34.7% (95% CI 22.9%-48.7%) were seropositive by at least one assay. A total of 216 individuals (54.8%; 95% CI 49.9%-59.7%) had evidence of ever infection using antibody testing and/or PCR during or prior to this study. Of these, only 78.2%, 74.1%, and 77.3% were seropositive in the CL-900i, VidasIII, and Elecsys assays, respectively.ConclusionsAll three assays had comparable performance and excellent agreement, but missed at least 20% of individuals with past or current infection. Commercial antibody assays can substantially underestimate ever infection, more so when infection rates are high.</jats:sec

SARS-CoV-2 infection among primary healthcare workers: a cross- sectional study

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are critical to the healthcare system and are at an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. They may acquire infections from the community and their work settings. To date, the majority of the studies reporting on the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCWs, including serology testing, are from hospital settings. Primary care provides a platform and plays a critical role in prevention, testing, triaging and treating patients, but a smaller number of studies focus on primary care settings. In a recent systematic review, primary care physicians were at increased risk of worse outcomes and were the highest risk specialty for deaths among doctors. This short report provides an objective assessment of infection risk among frontline primary care HCWs utilizing RT-PCR results and serology testing