Search

SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants coupled with waning immunity pose a significant threat to the long-term care (LTC) population. Our objective was to measure salivary IgG antibodies in residents and staff of an LTC facility to (1) evaluate IgG response in saliva post-natural infection and vaccination and (2) assess its feasibility to describe the seroprevalence over time.We performed salivary IgG sampling of all residents and staff who agreed to test in a 150-bed skilled nursing facility during three seroprevalence surveys between October 2020 and February 2021. The facility had SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in May 2020 and November 2020, when 45 of 138 and 37 of 125 residents were infected, respectively; they offered two Federal vaccine clinics in January 2021. We evaluated quantitative IgG in saliva to the Nucleocapsid (N), Spike (S), and Receptor-binding domain (RBD) Antigens of SARS-CoV-2 over time post-infection and post-vaccination.One hundred twenty-four residents and 28 staff underwent saliva serologic testing on one or more survey visits. Over three surveys, the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence at the facility was 49%, 64%, and 81%, respectively. IgG to S, RBD, and N Antigens all increased post infection. Post vaccination, the infection naïve group did not have a detectable N IgG level, and N IgG levels for the previously infected did not increase post vaccination (p 0.001). Fully vaccinated subjects with prior COVID-19 infection had significantly higher RBD and S IgG responses compared with those who were infection-naïve prior to vaccination (p 0.001 for both).Positive SARS-COV-2 IgG in saliva was concordant with prior infection (Anti N, S, RBD) and vaccination (Anti S, RBD) and remained above positivity threshold for up to 9 months from infection. Salivary sampling is a non-invasive method of tracking immunity and differentiating between prior infection and vaccination to inform the need for boosters in LTC residents and staff.

ObjectivesCOVID-19 has brought unprecedented attention to the crucial role of diagnostics in pandemic control. We compared SARS-CoV-2 test performance by sample type and modality in close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases.MethodsClose contacts of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were enrolled after informed consent. Clinician-collected nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs in viral transport media (VTM) were tested with a nucleic acid test (NAT). NP VTM and self-collected passive drool were tested using the PerkinElmer real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assay. For the first 4 months of study, mid-turbinate swabs were tested using the BD Veritor rapid antigen test. NAT positive NP samples were tested for infectivity using a VeroE6TMPRSS2 cell culture model.ResultsBetween November 17, 2020, and October 1, 2021, 235 close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases were recruited, including 95 with symptoms (82% symptomatic for <5 days) and 140 asymptomatic individuals. NP swab reference tests were positive for 53 (22.6%) participants; 24/50 (48%) were culture positive. PerkinElmer testing of NP and saliva samples identified an additional 28 (11.9%) SARS-CoV-2 cases who tested negative by clinical NAT. Antigen tests performed for 99 close contacts showed 83% positive percent agreement (PPA) with reference NAT among early symptomatic persons, but 18% PPA in others; antigen tests in 8 of 11 (72.7%) culture-positive participants were positive.ConclusionsContacts of SARS-CoV-2 cases may be falsely negative early after contact, which more sensitive platforms may identify. Repeat or serial SARS-CoV-2 testing with both antigen and molecular assays may be warranted for individuals with high pretest probability for infection.