Diagnostic performances and thresholds: The key to harmonization in serological SARS-CoV-2 assays?

External Quality Assessment (EQA) scheme for serological diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 detection in Sicily Region (Italy), in the period 2020-2022

OBJECTIVES

Since December 2019, worldwide public health has been exposed to a severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by Coronavirus-2. Serological testing is necessary for retrospective assessment of seroprevalence rates, and the determination of vaccine response and duration of immunity. For this reason, it was necessary to introduce a panel of tests able to identify and quantify Covid-19 antibodies.

METHODS

As a Regional Reference Centre, the CRQ Laboratory (Regional Laboratory for the Quality Control) developed and conducted an External Quality Assessment (EQA) panel of assays, to evaluate the quality of various methods, that were used by 288 Sicilian laboratories, previously authorized on behalf of the Public Health Service.

RESULTS

The performance test was based on pooled samples with different levels of concentration of antibodies. 97 , 98, and 95 % of the participating laboratories tested all samples correctly in 2020, 2021, and 2022 respectively. The best performance was observed in the test of total Ig. The general performance of laboratories improved over the years.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorrect diagnosis had and could still have important implications on vaccination cycles. Only through the effort of laboratory professionals, and the extension of the EQA scheme, a better harmonization of methods, protocols, and thus results, to guarantee a better healthcare system, will be possible.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Responses in Various Populations: Use of a Rapid Surrogate Lateral Flow Assay and Correlations with Anti-RBD Antibody Levels

BACKGROUND

After the global COVID-19 crisis, understanding post-infectious immunity and vaccine efficacy remains crucial. This study aims to assess anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity through a quantitative analysis of anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies and rapid functional testing of the neutralizing humoral response.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on samples from various cohorts, including partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, post-COVID/no-vaccination, and post-COVID/vaccination individuals with various immune-competency statuses. The anti-RBD antibodies were measured using an automated chemiluminescence assay, while the neutralizing antibodies' (NAbs') activity was assessed through the lateral flow ichroma COVID-19 nAb test (LFT), a surrogate neutralization assay.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed various levels of anti-RBD antibodies and seroneutralization responses across cohorts, with the post-COVID/vaccination group demonstrating the most robust protection. A correlation between anti-RBD antibodies and seroneutralization was observed, albeit with varying strength depending on the subgroup analyzed. Longitudinal assessment following natural infection showed an initial surge followed by a decline in both measures. A cutoff of 3.0 log10 BAU/mL was established to predict significant seroneutralization.

CONCLUSIONS

The ichroma™ COVID-19 nAb test displayed high specificity and emerged as a valuable tool for monitoring anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity. These findings contribute to understand the antibody response dynamics and underscore the potential of rapid tests in predicting protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

From Detection to Protection: Antibodies and Their Crucial Role in Diagnosing and Combatting SARS-CoV-2

Understanding the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is crucial to comprehending disease progression and the significance of vaccine and therapeutic development. The emergence of highly contagious variants poses a significant challenge to humoral immunity, underscoring the necessity of grasping the intricacies of specific antibodies. This review emphasizes the pivotal role of antibodies in shaping immune responses and their implications for diagnosing, preventing, and treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. It delves into the kinetics and characteristics of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 and explores current antibody-based diagnostics, discussing their strengths, clinical utility, and limitations. Furthermore, we underscore the therapeutic potential of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, discussing various antibody-based therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, polyclonal antibodies, anti-cytokines, convalescent plasma, and hyperimmunoglobulin-based therapies. Moreover, we offer insights into antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, emphasizing the significance of neutralizing antibodies in order to confer immunity to SARS-CoV-2, along with emerging variants of concern (VOCs) and circulating Omicron subvariants. We also highlight challenges in the field, such as the risks of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and shed light on the challenges associated with the original antigenic sin (OAS) effect and long COVID. Overall, this review intends to provide valuable insights, which are crucial to advancing sensitive diagnostic tools, identifying efficient antibody-based therapeutics, and developing effective vaccines to combat the evolving threat of SARS-CoV-2 variants on a global scale.

Three rounds of a national external quality assessment reveal a link between disharmonic anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody quantifications and the infection stage

OBJECTIVES

The WHO's standardized measuring unit, "binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/mL)," should allow the harmonization of quantitative results by different commercial Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. However, multiple studies demonstrate inter-assay discrepancies. The antigenic changes of the Omicron variant affect the performance of Spike-specific immunoassays. This study evaluated the variation of quantitative Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike antibody measurements among 46, 50, and 44 laboratories in three rounds of a national external quality assessment (EQA) prior to and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in a diagnostic near-to-real-life setting.

METHODS

We analyzed results reported by the EQA participant laboratories from single and sequential samples from SARS-CoV-2 convalescent, acutely infected, and vaccinated individuals, including samples obtained after primary and breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant.

RESULTS

The three immunoassays most commonly used by the participants displayed a low intra-assay and inter-laboratory variation with excellent reproducibility using identical samples sent to the participants in duplicates. In contrast, the inter-assay variation was very high with all samples. Notably, the ratios of BAU/mL levels quantified by different immunoassays were not equal among all samples but differed between vaccination, past, and acute infection, including primary infection with the Omicron variant. The antibody kinetics measured in vaccinated individuals strongly depended on the applied immunoassay.

CONCLUSIONS

Measured BAU/mL levels are only inter-changeable among different laboratories when the same assay was used for their assessment. Highly variable ratios of BAU/mL quantifications among different immunoassays and infection stages argue against the usage of universal inter-assay conversion factors.

Serological response to COVID-19 pneumonia and increasing severity over 18 months in a prospective cohort of hospitalized patients

In this study, we present an 18-month serological follow-up of 294 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The aim was to assess the dynamics of serological response and its correlation with clinical worsening, as well as to describe clinical worsening determinants. Results of the study showed an early immunoglobulin M response, which clearly diminished starting at 4 months, but nonetheless, a small group of patients remained positive. As for immunoglobulin G, levels were higher up to 6 months in patients who presented clinical worsening during hospitalization. High titers of the immunoglobulin were maintained in all patients during follow-up, which would indicate that humoral immunity due to infection is long-lasting. Male sex, presence of myalgias and extensive radiological affectation were significantly correlated with clinical worsening.

Performance and correlation of ten commercial immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Accurate immunoassays with a good correlation to neutralizing antibodies are required to support SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, management, vaccine deployment, and epidemiological investigation. We conducted a study to evaluate the performance and correlation of the surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and other commercial immunoassays. We tested 107 sera of COVID-19 confirmed cases from three different time points, 58 confirmed non-COVID-19 sera, and 52 sera collected before the pandemic with two sVNTs, seven chemiluminescent assays, and one fluorescein assay. All assays achieved excellent sensitivity (95%-100%, ≥15 days after onset of illness), specificity (95.5%-100%), and showed moderate to high correlation with GenScript sVNT (r = 0.58 to r = 0.98), except Roche total antibodies (r = 0.48). Vazyme sVNT and Siemens total antibodies showed the highest correlation with GenScript sVNT (r = 0.98 and 0.88, respectively). Median indexes that may be used to estimate sera with the highest ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 and ACE-2 receptor attachment (GenScript sVNT inhibition 90%-100%) were 6.9 S/C (Abbott IgG), 161.9 COI (FREND™ IgG), 16.8 AU/ml (Snibe IgG), 40.1 S/CO (Beckman IgG), 281.9 U/ml (Mindray IgG), 712.2 U/ml (Mindray total antibodies), >10 index (Siemens total antibodies), and 95.3% inhibition (Vazyme sVNT). All ten commercial COVID-19 serology assays, with different targeting antigens, demonstrated a reliable performance, supporting the utility of those assays in clinical and research settings. However, further studies using more samples are needed to refine the results of evaluating the performances of these marketed serological assays. Reliable serological assays would be useful for clinicians, researchers and epidemiologists in confirming SARS-CoV-2 infections, observing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and immune response post infection and vaccination, leading to better management and control of the disease.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

SARS-CoV-2 Serosurveys: How Antigen, Isotype and Threshold Choices Affect the Outcome

BACKGROUND

Evaluating the performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological assays and clearly articulating the utility of selected antigens, isotypes, and thresholds is crucial to understanding the prevalence of infection within selected communities.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study, implemented in 2020, screened PCRconfirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n 86), banked prepandemic and negative samples (n 96), healthcare workers and family members (n 552), and university employees (n 327) for antiSARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain, trimeric spike protein, and nucleocapsid protein immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA antibodies with a laboratory-developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and tested how antigen, isotype and threshold choices affected the seroprevalence outcomes. The following threshold methods were evaluated: (i) mean 3 standard deviations of the negative controls; (ii) 100 specificity for each antigen-isotype combination; and (iii) the maximal Youden index.

RESULTS

We found vastly different seroprevalence estimates depending on selected antigens and isotypes and the applied threshold method, ranging from 0.0 to 85.4. Subsequently, we maximized specificity and reported a seroprevalence, based on more than one antigen, ranging from 9.3 to 25.9.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed the importance of evaluating serosurvey tools for antigen-, isotype-, and threshold-specific sensitivity and specificity, to interpret qualitative serosurvey outcomes reliably and consistently across studies.

Evaluation of the analytical performance of three chemiluminescence serological assays for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

The serology surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies represents a useful tool for monitoring protective immunity in the population. We compared the performance of three SARS-CoV-2 antibody serological immunoassays in 600 vaccinated subjects after the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. All serum samples were evaluated by three different immunoassays for detecting anti-SARS-COV-2 antibodies. All SARS-CoV-2 antibody serological immunoassays could detect, when present, a post-vaccine humoral immune response. Median (interquartile range, IQR) anti-S-RBD IgG, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (1st IS) and Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG II levels of the subjects investigated were, respectively, 687 BAU/mL (131–2325), 419 IU/mL (58–1091) and 104 AU/mL (14–274). By studying a cohort of unvaccinated subjects, without previous COVID-19 infection, we found a high specificity for all methods. A high correlation was found between IgG titres. Considering the kinetics of subjects with multiple doses, we observed that percentage decreasing gradients were comparable across methods. Our results suggest that all the SARS-CoV-2 antibody serological immunoassays evaluated in this study are suitable for monitoring IgG titers over time. This study contributes to a better understanding of antibody response in vaccinated subjects using some currently available assays.

Multiple Post-SARS-COV2 Infectious Complications in Kidney Transplant Recipient

A forty-seven-year-old recipient in late period after kidney transplantation with chronic estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, fully vaccinated against COVID-19 was diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in November 2021. After an initially mild course of the disease, he developed multiorgan failure requiring periodic respiratory and dialysis therapy. Covid-19 disease was complicated by multiple infections such Clostridioides difficile infection, Streptococcus epidermidis bacteriemia, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Candida glabrata urinary tract disease, cytomegalovirus infection and oral candidiasis. In a short period, he was readmitted to the hospital twice with recurrent Klebsiella pneumoniae urosepsis. One of those hospitalizations was also complicated by another COVID-19 infection that was confirmed with non-reactive neutralizing antibody. Due to severe infections the patient required individualized modification of immunotherapy; however, due to their recurrence it was finally decided to be discontinued. The patient was also reintroduced to hemodialysis therapy and no infections occurred since then.

The role of neutralizing antibodies by sVNT after two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of Italian healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

Evaluating anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels is a current priority to drive immunization, as well as to predict when a vaccine booster dose may be required and for which priority groups. The aim of our study was to investigate the kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1 protein IgG (anti-S1 IgG) antibodies and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in an Italian cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), following the Pfizer/BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, over a period of up to six months after the second dose.

METHODS

We enrolled 57 HCWs, without clinical history of COVID-19 infection. Fluoroenzyme-immunoassay was used for the quantitative anti-S1 IgG antibodies at different time points T1 (one month), T3 (three months) and T6 (six months) following the second vaccine shot. Simultaneously, a commercial surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was used for the determination of NAbs, expressed as inhibition percentage (% IH).

RESULTS

Median values of anti-S1 IgG antibodies decreased from T1 (1,452 BAU/mL) to T6 (104 BAU/mL) with a percent variation of 92.8% while the sVNT showed a percent variation of 34.3% for the same time frame. The decline in anti-S1 IgG antibodies from T1 to T6 was not accompanied by a loss of the neutralizing capacity of antibodies. In fact at T6 a neutralization percentage <20% IH was observed only in 3.51% of HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reveal that the decrease of anti-S1 IgG levels do not correspond in parallel to a decrease of NAbs over time, which highlights the necessity of using both assays to assess vaccination effectiveness.

SARS-CoV-2 in inflammatory bowel disease population: Antibodies, disease and correlation with therapy

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend to cease inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) biologic therapy during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

AIM

To investigate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody positivity in an IBD cohort, COVID-19 disease severity and to evaluate the correlation with clinical/therapeutic variables.

METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study. IBD patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Data on COVID-19 disease, demographics/therapeutics and clinical features of the IBD population were collected. IgG ≥ 7 was set for SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity. Throat swab was performed in cases of IgG positivity. Correlations between antibody positivity or COVID-19 symptoms and therapeutic/clinical data were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 103 IBD patients were enrolled. Among them, 18.4% had IgG ≥ 7. Multivariate analysis of antibody positivity correlated only with IBD treatment. For IgG ≥ 7, the odds ratio was 1.44 and 0.16 for azathioprine and mesalazine, respectively, vs biologic drugs (P = 0.0157 between them). COVID-19 related symptoms were reported in 63% of patients with IgG positivity. All but one patient with COVID-19 symptoms did not require ceasing IBD treatment or hospitalization. IBD treatment and body mass index correlated with COVID-19 disease development with symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The IBD population does not have a higher risk of severe COVID-19. The relative risk of having SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and symptoms was higher for patients taking azathioprine, then biologic therapy and lastly mesalazine. None of the patients under biologic therapy developed severe COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 in inflammatory bowel disease population: Antibodies, disease and correlation with therapy

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend to cease inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) biologic therapy during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

AIM

To investigate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody positivity in an IBD cohort, COVID-19 disease severity and to evaluate the correlation with clinical/therapeutic variables.

METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study. IBD patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Data on COVID-19 disease, demographics/therapeutics and clinical features of the IBD population were collected. IgG ≥ 7 was set for SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity. Throat swab was performed in cases of IgG positivity. Correlations between antibody positivity or COVID-19 symptoms and therapeutic/clinical data were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 103 IBD patients were enrolled. Among them, 18.4% had IgG ≥ 7. Multivariate analysis of antibody positivity correlated only with IBD treatment. For IgG ≥ 7, the odds ratio was 1.44 and 0.16 for azathioprine and mesalazine, respectively, vs biologic drugs (P = 0.0157 between them). COVID-19 related symptoms were reported in 63% of patients with IgG positivity. All but one patient with COVID-19 symptoms did not require ceasing IBD treatment or hospitalization. IBD treatment and body mass index correlated with COVID-19 disease development with symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The IBD population does not have a higher risk of severe COVID-19. The relative risk of having SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and symptoms was higher for patients taking azathioprine, then biologic therapy and lastly mesalazine. None of the patients under biologic therapy developed severe COVID-19.

Comparison of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 Receptor-Binding Domain Antibody Immunoassays in Health Care Workers Before and After the BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine

OBJECTIVES

The Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection is now available. This vaccine induces antibody production against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike glycoprotein S1 (S1-RBD). This study evaluated the performance of new immunoassays to measure this type of antibody.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected at t0 (prime dose), after 21 days (t1, booster dose), and then after another 15 days (t2) from 70 health care professionals who had tested negative for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent vaccination with BNT162b2.

RESULTS

Antibodies against S1-RBD were measured using 4 commercial assays. At t0, t1, and t2, the median antibody concentrations (interquartile range) were, respectively, 0.2 (0.1-0.4), 49.5 (19.1-95.7), and 888.0 (603.6-1,345.8) U/mL by Maglumi SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD immunoglobulin G (IgG) (Shenzen New Industries Biomedical Engineering, Snibe Diagnostics); 0.0 (0.0-0.0), 7.9 (4.2-15.6), and 112.3 (76.4-205.6) U/mL by Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Siemens Healthineers); 0.0 (0.0-0.0), 59.9 (18.3-122.0), and 2,646.0 (1,351.2-4,124.0) U/mL by Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay (Roche Diagnostics); and 1.8 (1.8-1.8), 184 (94-294), and 1,841.0 (1,080.0-2,900.0) AU/mL by LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (DiaSorin). The differences between medians at t0, t1, and t2 were all statistically significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Antibodies against nucleocapsid proteins (N) were also measured using Maglumi 2019-nCoV IgG assay, which showed all negative results. All the considered anti-RBD methods detected response to the vaccine, while the method directed against anti-N failed to show response.

Development of a quantitative COVID-19 multiplex assay and its use for serological surveillance in a low SARS-CoV-2 incidence community

A serological COVID-19 Multiplex Assay was developed and validated using serum samples from convalescent patients and those collected prior to the 2020 pandemic. After initial testing of multiple potential antigens, the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) and receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein were selected for the human COVID-19 Multiplex Assay. A comparison of synthesized and mammalian expressed RBD proteins revealed clear advantages of mammalian expression. Antibodies directed against NP strongly correlated with SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization assay titers (rsp = 0.726), while anti-RBD correlation was moderate (rsp = 0.436). Pan-Ig, IgG, IgA, and IgM against NP and RBD antigens were evaluated on the validation sample sets. Detection of NP and RBD specific IgG and IgA had outstanding performance (AUC > 0.90) for distinguishing patients from controls, but the dynamic range of the IgG assay was substantially greater. The COVID-19 Multiplex Assay was utilized to identify seroprevalence to SARS-CoV-2 in people living in a low-incidence community in Ithaca, NY. Samples were taken from a cohort of healthy volunteers (n = 332) in early June 2020. Only two volunteers had a positive result on a COVID-19 PCR test performed prior to serum sampling. Serological testing revealed an exposure rate of at least 1.2% (NP) or as high as 5.7% (RBD), higher than the measured incidence rate of 0.16% in the county at that time. This highly sensitive and quantitative assay can be used for monitoring community exposure rates and duration of immune response following both infection and vaccination.

Dried blood spot specimens for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing: A multi-site, multi-assay comparison

The true severity of infection due to COVID-19 is under-represented because it is based on only those who are tested. Although nucleic acid amplifications tests (NAAT) are the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnostic testing, serological assays provide better population-level SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. Implementing large sero-surveys present several logistical challenges within Canada due its unique geography including rural and remote communities. Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a practical solution but comparative performance data on SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using DBS is currently lacking. Here we present test performance data from a well-characterized SARS-CoV-2 DBS panel sent to laboratories across Canada representing 10 commercial and 2 in-house developed tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Three commercial assays identified all positive and negative DBS correctly corresponding to a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI = 72.2, 100). Two in-house assays also performed equally well. In contrast, several commercial assays could not achieve a sensitivity greater than 40% or a negative predictive value greater than 60%. Our findings represent the foundation for future validation studies on DBS specimens that will play a central role in strengthening Canada's public health policy in response to COVID-19.

Improvements and limits of anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies assays by WHO (NIBSC 20/136) standardization

OBJECTIVES

A few CLIA automated immunoassays for the recognition of anti S1-RBD SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have recently been placed on the market. Preliminary data demonstrate a high correlation between methods but wide differences in absolute concentrations. A new WHO international standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin, NIBSC code 20/136, has been recently introduced to reduce the differences. The aim of this study is thus to verify the harmonization made by NIBSC 20/136 on Ab anti S1-RBD measurement on real samples.

METHODS

The following assays were studied: LIAISON^® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (DiaSorin); Elecsys^® anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (ROCHE); Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG) (Siemens); MAGLUMI^® SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG (Snibe), measuring 210 samples from 70 health workers with no previous SARS-CoV2 infection, during their Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 vaccination period.

RESULTS

The recalculation of concentrations based on the NIBSC 20/136 standardization improve the analytical and diagnostic comparability but do not cancel this variability between methods: recalibrated results remain different across methods, both in terms of tendency and single data.

CONCLUSIONS

The recalculation of concentrations based on the NIBSC 20/136 standardization improves the analytical and diagnostic comparability but does not cancel the differences between methods: recalibrated results remain different across methods, both in terms of tendency and single data.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies after one or two doses of Comirnaty (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer): Kinetics and comparison with chemiluminescent assays

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating neutralizing antibody (NAb) after BNT162b2 vaccine are scarce. We therefore compared NAb using the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) in vaccinated subjects, with those from five chemiluminescent (CLIA) assays, two targeting ACE and S-RBD interaction.

METHODS

Sera from 174 completely Comirnaty/BNT162b2 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) were evaluated at t₁₂ and t₂₈. NAb titers at low (PRNT₅₀) or high (PRNT₉₀) stringency were compared with: Liaison SARS-CoV-2 Trimeric-S IgG, Elecsys S-RBD Ab, Maglumi SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG and SARS-CoV-2 Nab; iFlash 2019-nCoV NAb.

RESULTS

Neither PRNT₅₀ nor PRNT₉₀ correlated with age (range, 24-65 years); no significant differences were found for gender. PRNT₅₀ and PRNT₉₀ seropositive titers (≥1:20) were 43 (24.7%) and 15 (8.6%) at t₁₂ and 167 (95.9%) and 149 (85.6%) at t₂₈. CLIA results at t₂₈ were uncorrelated with age, apart from Elecsys S-RBD Ab (r = -0.164, p = 0.046). Gender differences were found for Maglumi SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG (p = 0.037) and Maglumi NAb (p = 0.046). Considering PRNT₅₀ at thresholds of 1:20 (or 1:40) and 1:160 (or 1:320), corresponding to different immune protective levels, CLIA cut-offs have been identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Comirnaty/BNT162b2 elicits strong NAb production, especially 28 days after first inoculum. Differences in correlation between Nab titers and circulating antibodies measured by 5 immunoassays have been found, being stronger the correlation for Maglumi Nab.

Importance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay antigenic composition as revealed by the results of the Belgian external quality assessment (EQA) scheme

We report on sample IS/17575 since it generated highly divergent results in the Belgian SARS-CoV-2 serology external quality assessment scheme. Sample IS/17575 was serum originating from a 30 years old male patient. 124 diagnostic laboratories analysed this sample. A total of 168 results was returned (including 5 doubles). Overall, 38 were positive. All tests against S1 were positive except the Euroimmun IgG ELISA and the Ortho clinical Diagnostics VITROS IgG CLIA. All tests against S1/S2 (Liaison, Diasorin) resulted in a signal above cutoff. Assays against RBD, mostly generate a negative result. An exception are the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 ELISA's. All tests targeting N protein were negative. The survey shows, when >6 months post-infection, assays targeting at least S1, and preferably S1 combined with S2, are the most sensitive. This finding accentuates the necessity of external quality assessment schedules and importance of antigenic composition of serologic SARS-CoV-2 assays.

Prevalence, Distribution and IgG Antibody Levels Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Among Health-System and Community-Based Employees and Patients

BACKGROUND

Following the high morbidity and mortality due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in New Orleans, Louisiana, we sought to assess progress toward herd immunity.

METHODS

Ochsner Health employees and patients who volunteered for Abbott SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody test between March 1 and May 1, 2020 were included. We estimated IgG prevalence and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for variables associated with IgG test status.

RESULTS

Of the 13,343 participants with IgG test results, 78.6% were women, 70.6% were non-Hispanic White, 21.1% non-Hispanic Black, 2.9% Hispanic Americans and 5.4% belonged to other races. Overall, 7.99% (95% CI: 7.53-8.45%) of the participants tested IgG positive. In age-, sex- and body mass index (BMI)-adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Blacks were 2.7-times more likely to test positive than non-Hispanic Whites (OR=2.72; 95% CI: 2.33-3.19). Corresponding ORs (95% CIs) were 1.29 (0.84-1.99) for Hispanic Americans and 1.22 (0.85-1.75) for Other race/ethnicities. Compared to participants in administrative occupations, physician assistants (OR=7.14; 95% CI: 1.72-29.6) and therapists (OR=4.74; 95% CI: 1.49-15.03) were significantly more likely to have IgG antibodies while the association among nurses was not significant (OR=2.35; 95% CI: 0.96-5.77). Relative to 1.40, the test threshold for positivity, our measurements indicate a strong immune response (5.38±1.69), especially among those with a higher BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies were prevalent only in 8% of the participants. IgG prevalence was highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and participants with higher BMI but was lower among older participants.

Head-to-head evaluation of seven different seroassays including direct viral neutralisation in a representative cohort for SARS-CoV-2

A number of seroassays are available for SARS-CoV-2 testing; yet, head-to-head evaluations of different testing principles are limited, especially using raw values rather than categorical data. In addition, identifying correlates of protection is of utmost importance, and comparisons of available testing systems with functional assays, such as direct viral neutralisation, are needed.We analysed 6658 samples consisting of true-positives (n=193), true-negatives (n=1091), and specimens of unknown status (n=5374). For primary testing, we used Euroimmun-Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA-IgA/IgG and Roche-Elecsys-Anti-SARS-CoV-2. Subsequently virus-neutralisation, GeneScriptcPass, VIRAMED-SARS-CoV-2-ViraChip, and Mikrogen-recomLine-SARS-CoV-2-IgG were applied for confirmatory testing. Statistical modelling generated optimised assay cut-off thresholds. Sensitivity of Euroimmun-anti-S1-IgA was 64.8%, specificity 93.3% (manufacturer's cut-off); for Euroimmun-anti-S1-IgG, sensitivity was 77.2/79.8% (manufacturer's/optimised cut-offs), specificity 98.0/97.8%; Roche-anti-N sensitivity was 85.5/88.6%, specificity 99.8/99.7%. In true-positives, mean and median Euroimmun-anti-S1-IgA and -IgG titres decreased 30/90 days after RT-PCR-positivity, Roche-anti-N titres decreased significantly later. Virus-neutralisation was 80.6% sensitive, 100.0% specific (≥1:5 dilution). Neutralisation surrogate tests (GeneScriptcPass, Mikrogen-recomLine-RBD) were >94.9% sensitive and >98.1% specific. Optimised cut-offs improved test performances of several tests. Confirmatory testing with virus-neutralisation might be complemented with GeneScriptcPassTM or recomLine-RBD for certain applications. Head-to-head comparisons given here aim to contribute to the refinement of testing strategies for individual and public health use.

Silent SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Waning Immunity, Serology Testing, and COVID-19 Vaccination: A Perspective

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus causes a spectrum of clinical manifestations, ranging from asymptomatic to mild, moderate, or severe illness with multi-organ failure and death. Using a new machine learning algorithm developed by us, we have reported a significantly higher number of predicted COVID-19 cases than the documented counts across the world. The sole reliance on confirmed symptomatic cases overlooking the symptomless COVID-19 infections and the dynamics of waning immunity may not provide 'true' spectrum of infection proportion, a key element for an effective planning and implementation of protection and prevention strategies. We and others have previously shown that strategic orthogonal testing and leveraging systematic data-driven modeling approach to account for asymptomatics and waning cases may situationally have a compelling role in informing efficient vaccination strategies beyond prevalence reporting. However, currently Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) does not recommend serological testing either before or after vaccination to assess immune status. Given the 27% occurrence of breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated (FV) group with many being asymptomatics and still a larger fraction of the general mass remaining unvaccinated, the relaxed mask mandate and distancing by CDC can drive resurgence. Thus, we believe it is a key time to focus on asymptomatics (no symptoms) and oligosymptomatics (so mild that the symptoms remain unrecognized) as they can be silent reservoirs to propagate the infection. This perspective thus highlights the need for proactive efforts to reevaluate the current variables/strategies in accounting for symptomless and waning fractions.

A comparative review of immunoassays for COVID-19 detection

Introduction: The gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is expensive, time-consuming and may result in false-negative results. Serological tests can be employed for RT-PCR negative patients, contact tracing, determining the probability of protection against re-infection, and seroepidemiological studies.Areas covered: The main methodologies of serology-based tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) were reviewed and their diagnostic performances were compared. Herein, a literature review on the databases of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 based on the main serological methods for COVID-19 detection with the focus on comparative experiments was performed. The review was updated on December 31, 2020.Expert opinion: Serology testing could be considered as a part of diagnostic panel two-week post symptom onset. Higher sensitivity for serology-based tests could be achieved by determining combined IgG/IgM titers. Furthermore, higher sensitive serological test detecting neutralization antibody could be developed by targeting spike (S) antigen. It was also demonstrated that the sensitivity of ELISA/CLIA-based methods are higher than LFIA devices.

COVID-19 associated brain/spinal cord lesions and leptomeningeal enhancement: A meta-analysis of the relationship to CSF SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We reviewed the literature to evaluate cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) results from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who had neurological symptoms and had an MRI that showed (1) central nervous system (CNS) hyperintense lesions not attributed to ischemia and/or (2) leptomeningeal enhancement. We sought to determine if these findings were associated with a positive CSF severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of Medline and Embase from December 1, 2019 to November 18, 2020. CSF results were evaluated based on the presence/absence of (1) ≥ 1 CNS hyperintense lesion and (2) leptomeningeal enhancement.

RESULTS

In 117 publications, we identified 193 patients with COVID-19 who had an MRI of the CNS and CSF testing. There were 125 (65%) patients with CNS hyperintense lesions. Patients with CNS hyperintense lesions were significantly more likely to have a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR (10% [9/87] vs. 0% [0/43], p = 0.029). Of 75 patients who had a contrast MRI, there were 20 (27%) patients who had leptomeningeal enhancement. Patients with leptomeningeal enhancement were significantly more likely to have a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR (25% [4/16] vs. 5% [2/42], p = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

The presence of CNS hyperintense lesions or leptomeningeal enhancement on neuroimaging from patients with COVID-19 is associated with increased likelihood of a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR. However, a positive CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR is uncommon in patients with these neuroimaging findings, suggesting they are often related to other etiologies, such as inflammation, hypoxia, or ischemia.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality during the first epidemic wave in Madurai, south India: a prospective, active surveillance study

Background

SARS-CoV-2 has spread substantially within India over multiple waves of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However, the risk factors and disease burden associated with COVID-19 in India remain poorly understood. We aimed to assess predictors of infection and mortality within an active surveillance study, and to probe the completeness of case and mortality surveillance.

Methods

In this prospective, active surveillance study, we used data collected under expanded programmatic surveillance testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the district of Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India (population of 3 266 000 individuals). Prospective testing via RT-PCR was done in individuals with fever or acute respiratory symptoms as well as returning travellers, frontline workers, contacts of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, residents of containment zones, patients undergoing medical procedures, and other risk groups. Standardised data collection on symptoms and chronic comorbid conditions was done as part of routine intake. Additionally, seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G was assessed via a cross-sectional survey recruiting adults across 38 clusters within Madurai District from Oct 19, 2020, to Nov 5, 2020. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for positive RT-PCR results comparing individuals by age, sex, comorbid conditions, and aspects of clinical presentation. We estimated case-fatality ratios (CFRs) over the 30-day period following RT-PCR testing stratified by the same variables, and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for death associated with age, sex, and comorbidity. We estimated infection-fatality ratios (IFRs) on the basis of age-specific seroprevalence.

Results

Between May 20, 2020, and Oct 31, 2020, 13·5 diagnostic tests were done per 100 inhabitants within Madurai, as compared to 7·9 tests per 100 inhabitants throughout India. From a total of 440 253 RT-PCR tests, 15 781 (3·6%) SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified, with 8720 (5·4%) of 160 273 being positive among individuals with symptoms, and 7061 (2·5%) of 279 980 being positive among individuals without symptoms, at the time of presentation. Estimated aORs for symptomatic RT-PCR-confirmed infection increased continuously by a factor of 4·3 from ages 0–4 years to 80 years or older. By contrast, risk of asymptomatic RT-PCR-confirmed infection did not differ across ages 0–44 years, and thereafter increased by a factor of 1·6 between ages 45–49 years and 80 years or older. Seroprevalence was 40·1% (95% CI 35·8–44·6) at age 15 years or older by the end of the study period, indicating that RT-PCR clinical testing and surveillance testing identified only 1·4% (1·3–1·6%) of all infections in this age group. Among RT-PCR-confirmed cases, older age, male sex, and history of cancer, diabetes, other endocrine disorders, hypertension, other chronic circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders, and chronic kidney disease were each associated with elevated risk of mortality. The CFR among RT-PCR-confirmed cases was 2·4% (2·2–2·6); after age standardisation. At age 15 years or older, the IFR based on reported deaths was 0·043% (0·039–0·049), with reported deaths being only 11·0% (8·2–14·5) of the expected count.

Interpretation

In a large-scale SARS-CoV-2 surveillance programme in Madurai, India, we identified equal risk of asymptomatic infection among children, teenagers, and working-age adults, and increasing risk of infection and death associated with older age and comorbidities. Establishing whether surveillance practices or differences in infection severity account for gaps between observed and expected mortality is of crucial importance to establishing the burden of COVID-19 in India.

Funding

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

Translation

For the Hindi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Clinical performance of the Elecsys® anti-SARS-CoV-2 combined in an algorithm with two specific anti-IgG immunoassays for the evaluation of the serological response of patients with COVID-19 in a population with a high prevalence of infection

BACKGROUND

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been used in the study of the immune response in infected patients. However, differences in sensitivity and specificity have been reported, depending on the method of analysis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an algorithm in which a high-throughput automated assay for total antibodies was used for screening and two semi-automated IgG-specific methods were used to confirm the results, and also to correlate the analytical results with the clinical data and the time elapsed since infection.

METHODS

We studied 306 patients, some hospitalized and some outpatients, belonging to a population with a high prevalence of COVID-19. One-hundred and ten patients were classified as SARS-CoV-2 negative and 196 as positive by polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

The algorithm and automated assay alone had a specificity and a positive predictive value of 100%, although the sensitivity and negative predictive value of the algorithm was higher. Both methods showed a good sensitivity from day 11 of the onset of symptoms in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. The absorbance of the total antibodies was significantly higher in severely symptomatic than in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients, which suggests the antibody level was higher. We found 15 patients who did not present seroconversion at 12 days from the onset of symptoms or the first polymerase chain reaction test.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the proper functioning of algorithms in the diagnosis of the immune response to COVID-19, which can help to define testing strategies against this disease.

Low risk of reinfections and relation with serological response after recovery from the first wave of COVID-19

The aim of the study was to assess reinfection rates in relation to long-term antibody dynamics against SARS-CoV-2 after the first wave. A prospective longitudinal study with monthly serological follow-up during the first 4 months, and then at 6, 8, and 10 months after the disease onset of all recovered adult in- and outpatients with COVID-19 attending Udine Hospital (Italy) from March to May 2020. During the follow-up, reinfections were collected. A total of 546 unselected individuals with COVID-19 acquired from March to May 2020 were included (292 female, mean age 53 years). After a median follow-up of 10 months (IQR 6.2–10.4), reinfection occurred in 6 (1.1%) patients, median age of 44.5 years (IQR 33‒49). All had a previous history of mild COVID-19 (all were healthcare workers) and reinfection occurred a median of 9 months (IQR 8.2‒10.2) after the onset of the first episode. Patients with reinfection were either seronegative (2/56, n = 3.6%), seroreverted (2/137, 1.5%), or seropositive (2/353, 0.6%) (p = 0.085). All reinfections were mild (n = 5) or asymptomatic (n = 1). After reinfection, none of patients developed IgM response and only two had a transitory boosted IgG immunization response. In an unselected population after the first wave of COVID-19, after a prolonged observation period (mean 10 months), reinfection was very uncommon; occurred in patients with a previous history of mild infection, mostly with weak or absent serological response; and manifested with mild or asymptomatic clinical presentation.

The fall in antibody response to SARS-CoV-2: a longitudinal study of asymptomatic to critically ill patients up to 10 months after recovery

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term dynamics and factors associated with the serological response against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 after primary infection. A prospective longitudinal study was conducted with monthly serological follow-up during the first 4 months, and then at 6, 8, and 10 months after the disease onset of all recovered adult in- and outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) attending Udine Hospital (Italy) during the first wave (from March to May 2020). A total of 546 individuals were included (289 female, mean age 53.1 years), mostly with mild COVID-19 (370, 68.3%). Patients were followed for a median of 302 days (interquartile range, 186 to 311). The overall seroconversion rate within 2 months was 32% for IgM and 90% for IgG. Seroreversion was observed in 90% of patients for IgM at 4 months and in 47% for IgG at 10 months. Older age, number of symptoms at acute onset, and severity of acute COVID-19 were all independent predictors of long-term immunity both for IgM (β, linear regression coefficient, 1.10, P = 0.001; β 5.15 P = 0.014; β 43.84 P = 0.021, respectively) and for IgG (β 1.43 P < 0.001; β 10.46 P < 0.001; β 46.79 P < 0.001, respectively), whereas the initial IgG peak was associated only with IgG duration (β 1.12, P < 0.001). IgM antibodies disappeared at 4 months, and IgG antibodies declined in about half of patients 10 months after acute COVID-19. These effects varied depending on the intensity of the initial antibody response, age, and burden of acute COVID-19.

Serological diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2: an experimental External Quality Assessment Scheme

OBJECTIVES

Numerous analytical systems, rapidly made available on the market throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, aim to detect COVID-19, and to continuously update and improve the same systems. Medical laboratory professionals have also developed in-house analytical procedures in order to satisfy the enormous volume of requests for tests. These developments have highlighted the need control the analytical procedures used in order to guarantee patient safety. The External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme, an important quality assurance tool, aims to guarantee high standard performance for laboratory and analytical procedures. The aim of the present study was to report on the results collected in an experimental EQA scheme for the serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

All qualitative results collected in the different EQA surveys were summarized in order to identify the percentage of laboratory results in relation to typology of antibodies, results and samples.

RESULTS

A total of 4,867 data sets were collected. The analysis of EQA data made, demonstrates a better agreement among laboratories results for total Ig than single immunoglobulins (IgG, IgM, IgA) in the case samples positive for SARS-CoV-2, and a wide divergence between IgM results for positive samples (only 34.9% were correct). Results for negative controls and specificity controls demonstrated a better overall agreement than results for positive samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Working in collaboration with the IVD manufacturers, laboratory professionals must strive to achieve harmonization of results, and to develop well-defined protocols complying with the ISO 15189 requirements.

Characterization of the Diagnostic Performance of a Novel COVID-19 PETIA in Comparison to Four Routine N-, S- and RBD-Antigen Based Immunoassays

In 2019, a novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan in the province of Hubei, China. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quickly spread across the globe, causing the neoteric COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is commonly transmitted by droplet infection and aerosols when coughing or sneezing, as well as high-risk exposures to infected individuals by face-to-face contact without protective gear. To date, a broad variety of techniques have emerged to assess and quantify the specific antibody response of a patient towards a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here, we report the first comprehensive comparison of five different assay systems: Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA), Electro-Chemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA), and a new Particle-Enhanced Turbidimetric Immunoassay (PETIA) for SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, we also evaluated the suitability of N-, S1- and RBD-antigens for quantifying the SARS-CoV-2 specific immune response. Linearity and precision, overall sensitivity and specificity of the assays, stability of samples, and cross-reactivity of general viral responses, as well as common coronaviruses, were assessed. Moreover, the reactivity of all tests to seroconversion and different sample matrices was quantified. All five assays showed good overall agreement, with 76% and 87% similarity for negative and positive samples, respectively. In conclusion, all evaluated methods showed a high consistency of results and suitability for the robust quantification of the SARS-CoV-2-derived immune response.

Performance of 4 Automated SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assay Platforms in a Large Cohort Including Susceptible COVID-19-Negative and COVID-19-Positive Patients

BACKGROUND

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological responses may have a vital role in controlling the spread of the disease. However, the comparative performance of automated serological assays has not been determined in susceptible patients with significant comorbidities.

METHODS

In this study, we used large numbers of samples from patients who were negative (n = 2030) or positive (n = 112) for COVID-19 to compare the performance of 4 serological assay platforms: Siemens Healthineers Atellica IM Analyzer, Siemens Healthineers Dimension EXL Systems, Abbott ARCHITECT, and Roche cobas.

RESULTS

All 4 serology assay platforms exhibited comparable negative percentage of agreement with negative COVID-19 status ranging from 99.2% to 99.7% and positive percentage of agreement from 84.8% to 87.5% with positive real-time reverse transcriptase PCR results. Of the 2142 total samples, only 38 samples (1.8%) yielded discordant results on one or more platforms. However, only 1.1% (23/2030) of results from the COVID-19-negative cohort were discordant. whereas discordance was 10-fold higher for the COVID-19-positive cohort, at 11.3% (15/112). Of the total 38 discordant results, 34 were discordant on only one platform.

CONCLUSIONS

Serology assay performance was comparable across the 4 platforms assessed in a large population of patients who were COVID-19 negative with relevant comorbidities. The pattern of discordance shows that samples were discordant on a single assay platform, and the discordance rate was 10-fold higher in the population that was COVID-19 positive.

Neutralizing Antibodies in COVID-19 Patients and Vaccine Recipients after Two Doses of BNT162b2

The evaluation of the neutralizing capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is important because they represent real protective immunity. In this study we aimed to measure and compare the neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in COVID-19 patients and in vaccinated individuals. One-hundred and fifty long-term samples from 75 COVID-19 patients were analyzed with a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and compared to six different SARS-CoV-2 serology assays. The agreement between the sVNT and pseudovirus VNT (pVNT) results was found to be excellent (i.e., 97.2%). The NAb response was also assessed in 90 individuals who had received the complete dose regimen of BNT162b2. In COVID-19 patients, a stronger response was observed in moderate–severe versus mild patients (p-value = 0.0006). A slow decay in NAbs was noted in samples for up to 300 days after diagnosis, especially in moderate–severe patients (r = −0.35, p-value = 0.03). In the vaccinated population, 83.3% of COVID-19-naive individuals had positive NAbs 14 days after the first dose and all were positive 7 days after the second dose, i.e., at day 28. In previously infected individuals, all were already positive for NAbs at day 14. At each time point, a stronger response was observed for previously infected individuals (p-value < 0.05). The NAb response remained stable for up to 56 days in all participants. Vaccinated participants had significantly higher NAb titers compared to COVID patients. In previously infected vaccine recipients, one dose might be sufficient to generate sufficient neutralizing antibodies.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses and Seroconversion in COVID-19 Patients Using Twelve Commercial Immunoassays

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays.

Methods

We evaluated 12 commercial immunoassays, including three automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (Abbott, Roche, and Siemens), three enzyme immunoassays (Bio-Rad, Euroimmun, and Vircell), five lateral flow immunoassays (Boditech Med, SD biosensor, PCL, Sugentech, and Rapigen), and one surrogate neutralizing antibody assay (GenScript) in sequential samples from 49 COVID-19 patients and 10 seroconversion panels.

Results

The positive percent agreement (PPA) of assays for a COVID-19 diagnosis ranged from 84.0% to 98.5% for all samples (>14 days after symptom onset), with IgM or IgA assays showing higher PPAs. Seroconversion responses varied across the assay type and disease severity. Assays targeting the spike or receptor-binding domain protein showed a tendency for early seroconversion detection and higher index values in patients with severe disease. Index values from SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody assays (three automated assays, one LFIA, and three EIAs) showed moderate to strong correlations with the neutralizing antibody percentage (r=0.517-0.874), and stronger correlations in patients with severe disease and in assays targeting spike protein. Agreement among the 12 assays was good (74.3%-96.4%) for detecting IgG or total antibodies.

Conclusions

Positivity rates and seroconversion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies vary depending on the assay kits, disease severity, and antigen target. This study contributes to a better understanding of antibody response in symptomatic COVID-19 patients using currently available assays.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital staff in rural Central Fukushima, Japan: A historical cohort study

Performing a cohort-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay is crucial for understanding infection status and future decision-making. The objective of this study was to examine consecutive antibody seroprevalence changes among hospital staff, a high-risk population. A two-time survey was performed in May and October 2020 for 545 hospital staff to investigate the changes in the results of the rapid kit test and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). The seroprevalence of each assay was summarized at both the survey periods. The proportion of seropositive individuals in the CLIA for each survey period and the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Central Fukushima were then compared. We chose 515 participants for the analysis. The proportion of IgM seroprevalence in CLIA increased from 0.19% in May to 0.39% in October, and IgG seroprevalence decreased from 0.97% in May to 0.39% in October. The proportion of IgM seroprevalence in the rapid kit test decreased from 7.96% in May to 3.50% in October, and IgG seroprevalence decreased from 7.77% in May to 2.14% in October.

The IgG and IgM antibody seroprevalence among hospital staff in rural Central Fukushima decreased; the seroprevalence among hospital staff was consistent with the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Central Fukushima area. Although it is difficult to interpret the results of the antibody assay in a population with a low prior probability, constant follow-up surveys of antibody titers among hospital staff had several merits in obtaining a set of criteria regarding the accuracy of measures against COVID-19 and estimating the COVID-19 infection status among hospital staff.

Epidemiological study using IgM and IgG antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 in The University of Tokyo, Japan (UT-CATS)

Introduction

The worldwide pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has continued to date. Given that some of the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, antibody tests are useful to determine whether there is a previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we measured IgM and IgG antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 in the serum of asymptomatic healthy subjects in The University of Tokyo, Japan.

Methods

From June 2020, we recruited participants, who were students, staff, and faculty members of The University of Tokyo in the project named The University of Tokyo COVID-19 Antibody Titer Survey (UT-CATS). Following blood sample collection, participants were required to answer an online questionnaire about their social and health information. We measured IgG and IgM titers against SARS-CoV-2 using iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG detection kit which applies a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for the qualitative detection.

Results

There were 6609 volunteers in this study. After setting the cutoff value at 10 AU/mL, 32 (0.48%) were positive for IgG and 16 (0.24%) for IgM. Of six participants with a history of COVID-19, five were positive for IgG, whereas all were negative for IgM. The median titer of IgG was 0.40 AU/mL and 0.39 AU/mL for IgM. Both IgG and IgM titers were affected by gender, age, smoking status, and comorbidities.

Conclusions

Positive rates of IgG and IgM titers were relatively low in our university. Serum levels of these antibodies were affected by several factors, which might affect the clinical course of COVID-19.

Post-COVID-19 symptoms 6 months after acute infection among hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVES

To assess the prevalence of and factors associated with post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) syndrome 6 months after the onset.

METHODS

A bidirectional prospective study. Interviews investigated symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19 6 months after the disease onset of all consecutive adult inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 attending Udine Hospital (Italy) from March to May 2020. IgG antibodies against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were also evaluated 6 months after the onset of symptoms, at the time of the interview.

RESULTS

A total of 599 individuals were included (320 female, 53.4%; mean age 53 years, SD 15.8) and interviewed 187 days (22 SD) after onset. The prevalence of post-COVID-19 syndrome was 40.2% (241/599). The presence of IgG antibodies was significantly associated with the occurrence of post-COVID-19 syndrome (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48-4.38, p 0.001) and median SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres were significantly higher in patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome than in patients without symptoms (42.1, IQR 17.1-78.4 vs. 29.1, IQR 12.1-54.2 kAU/L, p 0.004). Female gender (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05-2.27), a proportional increase in the number of symptoms at the onset of COVID-19 (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.59-2.05) and ICU admission OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.18-8.11) were all independent risk factors for post-COVID-19 syndrome. The same predictors also emerged in a subgroup of 231 patients with the serological follow-up available at the time of the interview alongside the proportional increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p 0.04).

DISCUSSION

Prospective follow-up could be offered to specific subgroups of COVID-10 patients, to identify typical symptoms and persistently high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres as a means of early detection of post-COVID-19 long-term sequelae.

Automated, flow-based chemiluminescence microarray immunoassay for the rapid multiplex detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma (CoVRapid CL-MIA)

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for rapid serological tests that allow multiplexing emerged, as antibody seropositivity can instruct about individual immunity after an infection with SARS-CoV-2 or after vaccination. As many commercial antibody tests are either time-consuming or tend to produce false negative or false positive results when only one antigen is considered, we developed an automated, flow-based chemiluminescence microarray immunoassay (CL-MIA) that allows for the detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD), spike protein (S1 fragment), and nucleocapsid protein (N) in human serum and plasma in less than 8 min. The CoVRapid CL-MIA was tested with a set of 65 SARS-CoV-2 serology positive or negative samples, resulting in 100% diagnostic specificity and 100% diagnostic sensitivity, thus even outcompeting commercial tests run on the same sample set. Additionally, the prospect of future quantitative assessments (i.e., quantifying the level of antibodies) was demonstrated. Due to the fully automated process, the test can easily be operated in hospitals, medical practices, or vaccination centers, offering a valuable tool for COVID-19 serosurveillance. Graphical abstract.

Mental distress in a clinical nurse due to a false-positive COVID-19 antibody test result during the COVID-19 epidemic in Japan: A case report

This study suggests the importance of instituting accompanying measures to prevent potential negative mental and social impacts on people receiving false-positive results.

Antibody response to first and second dose of BNT162b2 in a cohort of characterized healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Vaccine-induced population immunity is a key global strategy to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The rapid implementation and availability of several COVID-19 vaccines is now a global health-care priority but more information about humoral responses to single- and double-dose vaccine is needed.

METHODS

163 health care workers (HCW) of the Padua University Hospitals, who underwent a complete vaccination campaign with BNT162b2 vaccine were asked to collect serum samples at 12 (t12) and 28 (t28) days after the first inoculum to allow the measurement of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies (Ab) using chemiluminescent assays against the spike (S) protein and the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the virus, respectively.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found at t12 for infection-naïve and subjects with previous-natural infection who present higher values of specific antibodies, while no significant differences have been found between t12 and t28. No statistically significant difference was found between male and female, while lower Ab levels have been observed in subjects older than 60 years at t12 but not at t28.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms observed differences in vaccine responses between infection-naïve and subjects with previous natural infection at t12 but not for a longer time. The influence of sex and age deserves further studies, even if the relationship with age seems particularly significant.

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.

The difference between IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays for COVID-19; lessons from the examination of healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between the results of two serology assays for detection of COVID-19 among medical staff, who are at higher risks of infection.

METHODS

The immunochromatography (ICG) rapid test kit and the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) quantitative antibody test were performed. The differences in IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays were descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 637 participants were included in this research. Two staff were IgM positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test (cutoff value: 10 AU/ml) of 51 staff who were IgM positive in the rapid test kit. Six staff were IgG positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test of 56 staff who were IgG positive in the rapid test kit. The proportion of antibody positive staff differed greatly between the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a vast difference in the proportions of IgG and IgM antibody positive staff in the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test results. The results from the only rapid test kit might have to be interpreted with caution. Further studies to evaluate antibody testing accuracy are required to promote the understanding of each assay's characteristics and determine their purposes in each community.

Cerebrospinal fluid in COVID-19: A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

We sought to review the literature on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing in patients with COVID-19 for evidence of viral neuroinvasion by SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of Medline and Embase between December 1, 2019 and November 18, 2020 to identify case reports or series of patients who had COVID-19 diagnosed based on positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or serologic testing and had CSF testing due to a neurologic symptom.

RESULTS

We identified 242 relevant documents which included 430 patients with COVID-19 who had acute neurological symptoms prompting CSF testing. Of those, 321 (75%) patients had symptoms that localized to the central nervous system (CNS). Of 304 patients whose CSF was tested for SARS-CoV-2 PCR, there were 17 (6%) whose test was positive, all of whom had symptoms that localized to the central nervous system (CNS). The majority (13/17, 76%) of these patients were admitted to the hospital because of neurological symptoms. Of 58 patients whose CSF was tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibody, 7 (12%) had positive antibodies with evidence of intrathecal synthesis, all of whom had symptoms that localized to the CNS. Of 132 patients who had oligoclonal bands evaluated, 3 (2%) had evidence of intrathecal antibody synthesis. Of 77 patients tested for autoimmune antibodies in the CSF, 4 (5%) had positive findings.

CONCLUSION

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in CSF via PCR or evaluation for intrathecal antibody synthesis appears to be rare. Most neurological complications associated with SARS- CoV-2 are unlikely to be related to direct viral neuroinvasion.

Family Transmission of COVID-19 Including a Child with MIS-C and Acute Pancreatitis

INTRODUCTION

Spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, since at least December 2019, has caused a pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 causes the disease COVID-19, which can affect several human organs. Abdominal pain is one of the known symptoms, but little is known about acute pancreatitis as a complication. As well, knowledge about viral transmission in families is limited. This case report describes MIS-C and acalculous acute pancreatitis in a child who was a member of a family in which four of five members had COVID-19.

CASE REPORT

A previously healthy family was infected by SARS-CoV-2 from an unknown source. The 13-year-old daughter was infected by SARS-CoV-2 and symptomatic during two periods, with an asymptomatic interval in-between. During the first period, she had transient and mild upper respiratory symptoms which was followed four weeks later by a secondary severe illness. At that point, there was inflammation in multiple organs and signs of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) and a Kawasaki-like disease with skin rash, scalded skin in hands and conjunctivitis. Myocarditis, bronchopneumonia, pancreatitis, and hepatopathy without encephalopathy were noted. She required assisted ventilation for 5 days. There were laboratory signs of disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. The multisystem inflammation was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) once a day for four days and immunotherapy (high dose methylprednisolone (IV) once a day, for 12 days, then tapered over 4 weeks, anakinra (IV) four times daily for 12 days), low molecular weight heparin for 22 days and salicylates for 6 weeks leading to full restoration of health. The two brothers and mother in the family had mild to moderate COVID-19 infections. The father was not affected despite close contact with his children. The household transmission and clinical course and outcome are described. No further known COVID-19 infection occurred in the neighborhood during or immediately after the family cluster was discovered.

CONCLUSION

Penetrance and severity of COVID-19 can vary in family clusters. One adolescent showed a two-phase course with severe infection. This case report highlights MIS-C and acute pancreatitis as a complication associated with COVID-19 in children.

Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes.