German federal-state-wide seroprevalence study of 1st SARS-CoV-2 pandemic wave shows importance of long-term antibody test performance

Background Reliable data on the adult SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate in Germany are still scarce. We performed a federal state-wide cross-sectional seroprevalence study named SaarCoPS, that is representative for the adult population including elderly individuals and nursing home residents in the Saarland. Methods Serum was collected from 2940 adults via stationary or mobile teams during the 1st pandemic wave steady state period. We selected an antibody test system with maximal specificity, also excluding seroreversion effects due to a high longitudinal test performance. For the calculations of infection and fatality rates, we accounted for the delays of seroconversion and death after infection. Results Using a highly specific total antibody test detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 responses over more than 180 days, we estimate an adult infection rate of 1.02% (95% CI: [0.64; 1.44]), an underreporting rate of 2.68-fold (95% CI: [1.68; 3.79]) and infection fatality rates of 2.09% (95% CI: (1.48; 3.32]) or 0.36% (95% CI: [0.25; 0.59]) in all adults including elderly individuals, or adults younger than 70 years, respectively. Conclusion The study highlights the importance of study design and test performance for seroprevalence studies, particularly when seroprevalences are low. Our results provide a valuable baseline for evaluation of future pandemic dynamics and impact of public health measures on virus spread and human health in comparison to neighbouring countries such as Luxembourg or France

Sicherheit von Blut und Blutprodukten: Testmethoden zum Nachweis der Hepatitisviren B, C und E

Infektionen mit den Hepatitisviren B, C und E (HBV, HCV, HEV) sind über das Blut übertragbar und können schwere akute und chronische Leberentzündungen hervorrufen. Um die Sicherheit von Spenderblut zu gewährleisten und Empfänger vor Virusübertragungen zu schützen, werden Blutkonserven in Deutschland mit Nukleinsäureamplifikationstechniken (NAT) auf Virusgenom sowie mit serologischen Methoden auf virale Antigene und humane Antikörper getestet. In diesem Beitrag werden die entsprechenden Regularien zur Sicherheit von Blut und Blutprodukten in Deutschland sowie die verschiedenen Screeningmethoden beschrieben. Die Sicherheit der Blutprodukte wird bewertet. Beim Spenderscreening angewandte NAT-Methoden basieren auf Technologien der Polymerasekettenreaktion (PCR) oder auf isothermen Verfahren, wie der Transcription-mediated Amplification (TMA), welche einen hochempfindlichen Nachweis einer Virusinfektion in Spenderblut ermöglichen und so zu einer Verkürzung der diagnostischen Fensterperiode beitragen. Bereits seit den 1970er-Jahren wird zur Erkennung einer möglichen HBV-Infektion ein Screening des viralen Oberflächenproteins (HBsAg) gefordert. Die verpflichtende Einführung der Testung auf HCV-spezifische Antikörper 1992, der HCV-NAT-Testung 1999 und des Anti-HBc-Spenderscreenings 2006 sowie die nichtverpflichtende, von den meisten Blutspendeeinrichtungen freiwillig durchgeführte HBV-NAT-Testung haben die Sicherheit von Blutprodukten deutlich verbessert und Übertragungsfälle auf seltene Einzelfälle in der frühen diagnostischen Fensterperiode reduziert. Der Erfolg der 2020 in Deutschland eingeführten HEV-NAT-Testung von Spenderblut wird sich in den kommenden Jahren bemessen lassen. Neben der Spendertestung ergänzen Maßnahmen zur Spenderauswahl und Pathogeninaktivierung das Sicherheitssystem für Blutspenden in Deutschland.Infections with hepatitis B, C, and E virus (HBV, HCV, and HEV) can be transmitted via blood and cause severe acute or chronic liver infections. To ensure the safety of blood donations and protect recipients from virus transmissions, blood donations in Germany are tested for viral genomes using nucleic acid amplification techniques (NATs) as well as for viral antigens and antibodies by serological testing. This article describes the relevant regulations on the safety of blood and blood products in Germany and the various screening methods. The safety of blood products is assessed. Currently used NAT methods for detection of hepatitis viruses are based either on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or isothermal methods such as transcription-mediated amplification (TMA), which enable a highly sensitive detection of viral infections and thereby contribute to the reduction of the diagnostic window. Antigen tests for the detection of viral surface protein of hepatitis B virus in blood donations were introduced in the 1970s in order to prevent potential transmissions. Since the introduction of mandatory testing for HCV-specific antibodies in 1992, HCV NAT testing in 1999, anti-HBc antibody testing in 2006, and the non-mandatory HBV NAT, which is voluntarily performed by most of the blood establishments, blood safety has increased tremendously. Only a few isolated cases of transfusion-transmitted infections in the early window period have been reported since. The success of the recent introduction of mandatory HEV NAT testing in 2020 will have to be assessed in the upcoming years. Besides blood donor screening, the system for blood safety in Germany is supplemented by additional measures for donor selection and pathogen inactivation

In vitro diagnostics for screening the blood supply: the new European regulation for IVD and the WHO IVD prequalification programme

Blood transfusion remains a routine life-saving medical procedure that helps replace blood lost due to surgery, injury or disease. The quality of transfused blood is crucial in this process as blood donors must be free of transfusion-transmissible infections and donated blood should be compatible to that of the recipient. The quality of donated blood could be affected by the quality of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs) used in the screening process. Consequently, the need for high-quality, safe and well-performing IVDs for use in transfusion medicine arises, accompanied by the need for tight regulations in this domain. In the European Union, the new IVD Regulation will replace the existing IVD Directive within a five-year transitional period. Manufacturers of IVDs are expected to fully comply with the new Regulation by 26 May 2022. In this review, we address the major differences relating to marketing authorization and testing between this new Regulation and its predecessor. We further present the main elements of the prequalification assessment introduced by the WHO for IVDs, including disease-specific IVDs for blood screening laboratories

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 for more than one year - kinetics and persistence of detection are predominantly determined by avidity progression and test design

BACKGROUND: Antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2 requires an understanding of its variation, course, and duration. METHODS: Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated over 5–430 days on 828 samples across COVID-19 severity levels, for total antibody (TAb), IgG, IgA, IgM, neutralizing antibody (NAb), antibody avidity, and for receptor-binding-domain (RBD), spike (S), or nucleoprotein (N). Specificity was determined on 676 pre-pandemic samples. RESULTS: Sensitivity at 30–60 days post symptom onset (pso) for TAb-S/RBD, TAb-N, IgG-S, IgG-N, IgA-S, IgM-RBD, and NAb was 96.6%, 99.5%, 89.7%, 94.3%, 80.9%, 76.9% and 92.8%, respectively. Follow-up 430 days pso revealed: TAb-S/RBD increased slightly (100.0%); TAb-N decreased slightly (97.1%); IgG-S and IgA-S decreased moderately (81.4%, 65.7%); NAb remained positive (94.3%), slightly decreasing in activity after 300 days; there was correlation with IgG-S (Rs = 0.88) and IgA-S (Rs = 0.71); IgG-N decreased significantly from day 120 (15.7%); IgM-RBD dropped after 30–60 days (22.9%). High antibody avidity developed against S/RBD steadily with time in 94.3% of patients after 430 days. This correlated with persistent antibody detection depending on antibody-binding efficiency of the test design. Severe COVID-19 correlated with earlier and higher antibody response, mild COVID-19 was heterogeneous with a wide range of antibody reactivities. Specificity of the tests was ≥99%, except for IgA (96%). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays was determined by test design, target antigen, antibody avidity, and COVID-19 severity. Sustained antibody detection was mainly determined by avidity progression for RBD and S. Testing by TAb and for S/RBD provided the highest sensitivity and longest detection duration of 14 months so far

Comparative sensitivity evaluation for 122 CE-marked rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, Germany, September 2020 to April 2021

INTRODUCTION: Numerous CE-marked SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag RDT) are offered in Europe, several of them with unconfirmed quality claims. AIM: We performed an independent head-to-head evaluation of the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT offered in Germany. METHODS: We addressed the sensitivity of 122 Ag RDT in direct comparison using a common evaluation panel comprised of 50 specimens. Minimum sensitivity of 75% for panel specimens with a PCR quantification cycle (Cq) ≤ 25 was used to identify Ag RDT eligible for reimbursement in the German healthcare system. RESULTS: The sensitivity of different SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT varied over a wide range. The sensitivity limit of 75% for panel members with Cq ≤ 25 was met by 96 of the 122 tests evaluated; 26 tests exhibited lower sensitivity, few of which failed completely. Some RDT exhibited high sensitivity, e.g. 97.5 % for Cq < 30. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative evaluation succeeded in distinguishing less sensitive from better performing Ag RDT. Most of the evaluated Ag RDT appeared to be suitable for fast identification of acute infections associated with high viral loads. Market access of SARS-CoV-2 Ag RDT should be based on minimal requirements for sensitivity and specificity

International collaborative study on the 3rd WHO International Standard for hepatitis B surface antigen

AbstractBackgroundThe WHO International Standard (IS) for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) is used to standardize HBsAg assays. Stocks of the 2nd IS for HBsAg are depleted. The proposal to establish its replacement was endorsed by WHO in 2012.ObjectivePreparation of a freeze-dried candidate 3rd IS (NIBSC 12/226); evaluation of its suitability in a WHO international collaborative study; calibration of its potency in International Units (IU).Study designThe 3rd IS is based on plasma-derived, purified, inactivated HBsAg from Vietnam. Qualitative and quantitative HBsAg assays were used to evaluate 12/226 alongside the 2nd IS and 1st IS. Blinded study samples included a duplicate of 12/226, a negative control and two diluted plasma samples representing hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes A and B.ResultsTwelve laboratories from 9 countries returned 22 data sets from 15 methods. The overall geometric mean potency of 12/226 is 47.3IU/mL (±13% CV) when compared to the 2nd IS with HBV subgenotype A2. The 3rd IS has HBV subgenotype B4 with a heterogeneous HBsAg subtype population of ayw1 and adw2. Some genotype-dependent effects on the inter-laboratory variability were observed but overall mean potencies were virtually identical irrespective of the IS used for calibration. Stability studies indicate that the candidate is stable for long-term use.Conclusions12/226 was established in October 2014 by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization as the 3rd IS for HBsAg with a potency of 47.3IU per ampoule maintaining the continuity in the standardization of HBsAg assays

Establishment of a specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of the sensitivity of 31 rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, Germany, September 2020 to April 2021

INTRODUCTION: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These RDT are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach. AIM: We aimed to establish a comprehensive specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests. METHODS: While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, there is no common validation strategy for antigen tests, including RDT. In this proof-of-principle study we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from 1.1 × 109 to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 RDT in up to six laboratories. RESULTS: Our results show that there is considerable variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different RDT. We show that the best RDT can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who present with SARS-CoV-2 loads down to 106 genome copies per mL of specimen. For the identification of infected individuals with SARS-CoV-2 loads corresponding to less than 106 genome copies per mL, only three RDT showed a clinical sensitivity of more than 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitive RDT can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads but not to identify all infected individuals

Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Prevalence of Antibodies in a Large, Repetitive Cross-Sectional Study of Blood Donors in Germany—Results from the SeBluCo Study 2020–2022

SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance is important to adapt infection control measures and estimate the degree of underreporting. Blood donor samples can be used as a proxy for the healthy adult population. In a repeated cross-sectional study from April 2020 to April 2021, September 2021, and April/May 2022, 13 blood establishments collected 134,510 anonymised specimens from blood donors in 28 study regions across Germany. These were tested for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid, including neutralising capacity. Seroprevalence was adjusted for test performance and sampling and weighted for demographic differences between the sample and the general population. Seroprevalence estimates were compared to notified COVID-19 cases. The overall adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence remained below 2% until December 2020 and increased to 18.1% in April 2021, 89.4% in September 2021, and to 100% in April/May 2022. Neutralising capacity was found in 74% of all positive specimens until April 2021 and in 98% in April/May 2022. Our serosurveillance allowed for repeated estimations of underreporting from the early stage of the pandemic onwards. Underreporting ranged between factors 5.1 and 1.1 in the first two waves of the pandemic and remained well below 2 afterwards, indicating an adequate test strategy and notification system in Germany