SARS-CoV-2 antibody characterization in emergency department, hospitalized and convalescent patients by two semi-quantitative immunoassays

Associations of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with birth outcomes: Results from three urban birth cohorts in the NIH environmental influences on child health outcomes program

Studies suggest perinatal infection with SARS-CoV-2 can induce adverse birth outcomes, but studies published to date have substantial limitations. We therefore conducted an observational study of 211 births occurring between January 2020-September 2021 in three urban cohorts participating in the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program. Serology was assessed for IgG, IgM and IgA antibodies to nucleocapsid, S1 spike, S2 spike, and receptor-binding domain. There were no differences in gestational age (GA), birth weight, preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW) among seropositive mothers. However, the few (n = 9) IgM seropositive mothers had children with lower BW (434g, 95% CI: 116-752), BW Z score-for-GA (0.73 SD, 95% CI 0.10-1.36) and were more likely to deliver preterm (OR 8.75, 95% CI 1.22-62.4). Though there are limits to interpretation, the data support efforts to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections in pregnancy.

Maternal Seroprevalence and Placental Transfer of COVID-19 Antibodies in Pregnancy: A Hospital-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a relatively new disease with high morbidity and mortality. Information about the prevalence of infections in pregnancy could help identify herd immunity, project epidemics, and decide policy guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the infection susceptibility risk of COVID-19 in pregnancy, to determine the prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies (IgG & IgM), and to evaluate the determinants of COVID-19 antibody positivity in pregnancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an analytical cross-sectional study involving 258 consenting pregnant women recruited at Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital, Edo State, Nigeria. Of these, 179 participants were recruited from the antenatal clinic, and 79 from the gynecology emergency unit. A structured questionnaire was administered at baseline. Venous blood was obtained at enrolment to test for total antibodies using ELISA. A nasopharyngeal swab was simultaneously obtained for COVID-19 PCR for all participants. Umbilical cord blood was taken after delivery in those who had positive serology. Socio-demographic variables and clinical presentation of respondents were considered as exposure variables, and this was cross-tabulated with outcome variables in bivariate analysis using chi-square with a level of significance at a P-value less than 0.05. Variables in bivariate analysis of chi-square that have a P-value less than 0.2 were entered into a logistic regression using multivariate logistic models.

RESULTS

 The study detected active COVID-19 infections among 7.4% (19/258) of the study participants. The study demonstrated a seroprevalence of COVID-19 antibodies in 62.4% (161/258) of the participants at recruitment and showed a strong correlation between working in the healthcare setting and living in an urban environment. Our study also reported 5.3% (8/152) of cord blood antibody positivity among study participants. The concentration of maternal immunoglobulin strongly and positively correlated with cord blood seropositivity.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence estimates are an underestimate of the actual proportion of pregnant women with prior COVID-19 exposure as observed in the study discrepancy of confirmed PCR infection and evidence of previous infection from serology. The study also highlighted a low efficiency of placental transfer of COVID-19 antibodies at birth among those who were seropositive at baseline and showed that maternal antibody levels play an important role in determining the efficiency of placenta transfer of COVID-19 antibodies in pregnancy.

RBD and Spike DNA-Based Immunization in Rabbits Elicited IgG Avidity Maturation and High Neutralizing Antibody Responses against SARS-CoV-2

Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are a critical part of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research as they are used to gain insight into the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Among the technologies available for generating nAbs, DNA-based immunization methods are an alternative to conventional protocols. In this pilot study, we investigated whether DNA-based immunization by needle injection in rabbits was a viable approach to produce a functional antibody response. We demonstrated that three doses of DNA plasmid carrying the gene encoding the full-length spike protein (S) or the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 induced a time-dependent increase in IgG antibody avidity maturation. Moreover, the IgG antibodies displayed high cross neutralization by live SARS-CoV-2 and pseudoviruses neutralization assays. Thus, we established a simple, low cost and feasible DNA-based immunization protocol in rabbits that elicited high IgG avidity maturation and nAbs production against SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the importance of DNA-based platforms for developing new immunization strategies against SARS-CoV-2 and future emerging epidemics.

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.

Cytokine response over the course of COVID-19 infection in pregnant women

Objective

To study how severity and progression of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) affect cytokine profiles in pregnant women.

Materials and methods

69 third-trimester, pregnant women were tested for COVID-19 infection and SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG antibodies. Patients were stratified according to SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcriptase-PCR (RT-PCR) status and serology (IgM and IgG) status. Cytokines G-CSF, HGF, IL-18, IL-1Ra, IL-2Ra, IL-8, and IP-10 were measured via ELISA. Retrospective chart review for COVID-19 symptoms and patient vitals was conducted, and cytokine levels were compared between SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative cohorts, by seronegative and seropositive infection, by time course since onset of infection, and according to NIH defined clinical severity.

Results

IL-18, IL-1Ra, and IP-10 increased in the 44 RT-PCR positive pregnant women compared to the 25 RT-PCR negative pregnant controls. Elevated cytokine levels were found in early infections, defined by positive RT-PCR and seronegative status, and higher cytokine levels were also associated with more severe disease. By IgM seroconversion, IL-8 and IP-10 returned to levels seen in uninfected patients, while IL-18 levels remained significantly elevated.

Conclusion

Cytokine profiles of third-trimester pregnant women vary with the time course of infection and are correlated with clinical severity.

Rapid antibody diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 adaptive immune response

The emergence of a pandemic scale respiratory illness (COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019) and the lack of the world's readiness to prevent its spread resulted in an unprecedented rise of biomedical diagnostic industries, as they took lead to provide efficient diagnostic solutions for COVID-19. However, these circumstances also led to numerous emergency use authorizations without appropriate evaluation that compromised standards, which could result in a larger than usual number of false-positive or false-negative results, leading to unwanted ambiguity in already confusing realities of the pandemic-hit closures of the world economy. This review is aimed at comparing the claimed or reported clinical sensitivity and clinical specificity of commercially available rapid antibody diagnostics with independently evaluated clinical performance results of the tests. Thereby, we not only present the types of modern antibody diagnostics and their working principles but summarize their experimental evaluations and observed clinical efficiencies to highlight the research, development, and commercialization issues with future challenges. Still, it must be emphasized that the serological or antibody tests do not serve the purpose of early diagnosis but are more suitable for epidemiology and screening populaces with an active immune response, recognizing convalescent plasma donors, and determining vaccine efficacy.

Assessment of avidity related to IgG subclasses in SARS-CoV-2 Brazilian infected patients

SARS-CoV-2 is considered a global emergency, resulting in an exacerbated crisis in the health public in the world. Although there are advances in vaccine development, it is still limited for many countries. On the other hand, an immunological response that mediates protective immunity or indicates that predict disease outcome in SARS-CoV-2 infection remains undefined. This work aimed to assess the antibody levels, avidity, and subclasses of IgG to RBD protein, in symptomatic patients with severe and mild forms of COVID-19 in Brazil using an adapted in-house RBD-IgG ELISA. The RBD IgG-ELISA showed 100% of specificity and 94.3% of sensibility on detecting antibodies in the sera of hospitalized patients. Patients who presented severe COVID-19 had higher anti-RBD IgG levels compared to patients with mild disease. Additionally, most patients analyzed displayed low antibody avidity, with 64.4% of the samples of patients who recovered from the disease and 84.6% of those who died in this avidity range. Our data also reveals an increase of IgG1 and IgG3 levels since the 8th day after symptoms onset, while IgG4 levels maintained less detectable during the study period. Surprisingly, patients who died during 8–14 and 15–21 days also showed higher anti-RBD IgG4 levels in comparison with the recovered (P < 0.05), suggesting that some life-threatening patients can elicit IgG4 to RBD antibody response in the first weeks of symptoms onset. Our findings constitute the effort to clarify IgG antibodies' kinetics, avidity, and subclasses against SARS-CoV-2 RBD in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 in Brazil, highlighting the importance of IgG antibody avidity in association with IgG4 detection as tool laboratory in the follow-up of hospitalized patients with more significant potential for life-threatening.

High-Throughput Multiplex SARS-CoV-2 IgG Microsphere Immunoassay for Dried Blood Spots: A Public Health Strategy for Enhanced Serosurvey Capacity

Early in the pandemic when diagnostic testing was not widely available, serosurveys played an important role in estimating the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations. Dried blood spots (DBS), which can be collected in nonclinical settings, provide a minimally invasive alternative to serum for serosurveys. We developed a Luminex-based SARS-CoV-2 microsphere immunoassay (MIA) for DBS that detects IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid (N) and spike subunit 1 (S1) antigens. The assay uses a 384-well plate format and automated liquid handlers for high-throughput capacity. Specificity was assessed using a large collection of prepandemic DBS and well-characterized sera. Sensitivity was analyzed using serology data from New York State SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey testing and matched diagnostic test results. For DBS, the specificity was 99.5% for the individual N and S1 antigens. Median fluorescence intensity (MFI) values for DBS and paired sera showed a strong positive correlation for N (R2 = 0.91) and S1 (R2 = 0.93). Sensitivity, assessed from 1,134 DBS with prior laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, ranged from 83% at 0 to 20 days to 95% at 61 to 90 days after a positive test. When stratified using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptom data, sensitivity ranged from 90 to 96% for symptomatic and 77 to 91% for asymptomatic individuals. For 8,367 health care workers reporting detailed symptom data, MFI values were significantly higher for all symptom categories. Our results indicate that the SARS-CoV-2 IgG DBS MIA is sensitive, specific, and well-suited for large population-based serosurveys. The ability to readily modify and multiplex antigens is important for ongoing assessment of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses to emerging variants and vaccines. IMPORTANCE Testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been used to estimate the prevalence of COVID-19 in different populations. Seroprevalence studies, or serosurveys, were especially useful during the early phase of the pandemic when diagnostic testing was not widely available, and the resulting seroprevalence estimates played an important role in public health decision making. To achieve meaningful results, antibody tests used for serosurveys should be accurate and accessible to diverse populations. We developed a test that detects antibodies to two different SARS-CoV-2 proteins in dried blood spots (DBS). DBS require only a simple fingerstick and can be collected in nonclinical settings. We conducted a robust validation study and have demonstrated that our test is both sensitive and specific. Furthermore, we demonstrated that our test is suitable for large-scale serosurveys by testing over 56,000 DBS collected in a variety of community-based venues in New York State during the spring of 2020.

TOP-Plus Is a Versatile Biosensor Platform for Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Durability

BACKGROUND

Low initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody titers dropping to undetectable levels within months after infection have raised concerns about long-term immunity. Both the antibody levels and the avidity of the antibody-antigen interaction should be examined to understand the quality of the antibody response.

METHODS

A testing-on-a-probe "plus" panel (TOP-Plus) was developed to include a newly developed avidity assay built into the previously described SARS-CoV-2 TOP assays that measured total antibody (TAb), surrogate neutralizing antibody (SNAb), IgM, and IgG on a versatile biosensor platform. TAb and SNAb levels were compared with avidity in previously infected individuals at 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in paired samples from 80 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sera from individuals vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 were also evaluated for antibody avidity.

RESULTS

The newly designed avidity assay in this TOP panel correlated well with a reference Bio-Layer Interferometry avidity assay (r = 0.88). The imprecision of the TOP avidity assay was <10%. Although TAb and neutralization activity (by SNAb) decreased between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection, the antibody avidity increased significantly (P < 0.0001). Antibody avidity in 10 SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated individuals (median: 28 days after vaccination) was comparable to the measured antibody avidity in infected individuals (median: 26 days after infection).

CONCLUSIONS

This highly precise and versatile TOP-Plus panel with the ability to measure SARS-CoV-2 TAb, SNAb, IgG, and IgM antibody levels and avidity of individual sera on one sensor can become a valuable asset in monitoring not only patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 but also the status of individuals' COVID-19 vaccination response.

Antibody Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Messenger RNA Vaccination in Pregnant Women and Transplacental Passage Into Cord Blood

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in pregnancy induces a robust maternal immune response, with transplacental antibody transfer detectable in cord blood as early as 16 days after the first dose.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 serology levels in pregnant women and their neonates

Background

Pregnant women and their neonates represent 2 vulnerable populations with an interdependent immune system that are highly susceptible to viral infections. The immune response of pregnant women to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the interplay of how the maternal immune response affects the neonatal passive immunity have not been studied systematically.

Objective

We characterized the serologic response in pregnant women and studied how this serologic response correlates with the maternal clinical presentation and with the rate and level of passive immunity that the neonate received from the mother.

Study Design

Women who gave birth and who tested positive for immunoglobulin M or immunoglobulin G against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using semiquantitative detection in a New York City hospital between March 22, 2020, and May 31, 2020, were included in this study. A retrospective chart review of the cases that met the inclusion criteria was conducted to determine the presence of coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms and the use of oxygen support. Serology levels were compared between the symptomatic and asymptomatic patients using a Welch 2 sample t test. Further chart review of the same patient cohort was conducted to identify the dates of self-reported onset of coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms and the timing of the peak immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G antibody levels after symptom onset was visualized using local polynomial regression smoothing on log₂-scaled serologic values. To study the neonatal serology response, umbilical cord blood samples of the neonates born to the subset of serology positive pregnant women were tested for serologic antibody responses. The maternal antibody levels of serology positive vs the maternal antibody levels of serology negative neonates were compared using the Welch 2 sample t test. The relationship between the quantitative maternal and quantitative neonatal serologic data was studied using a Pearson correlation and linear regression. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted using maternal symptoms, maternal serology levels, and maternal use of oxygen support to determine the predictors of neonatal immunoglobulin G levels.

Results

A total of 88 serology positive pregnant women were included in this study. The antibody levels were higher in symptomatic pregnant women than in asymptomatic pregnant women. Serology studies in 34 women with symptom onset data revealed that the maternal immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G levels peak around 15 and 30 days after the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms, respectively. Furthermore, studies of 50 neonates born to this subset of serology positive women showed that passive immunity in the form of immunoglobulin G is conferred in 78% of all neonates. The presence of passive immunity is dependent on the maternal antibody levels, and the levels of neonatal immunoglobulin G correlate with maternal immunoglobulin G levels. The maternal immunoglobulin G levels and maternal use of oxygen support were predictive of the neonatal immunoglobulin G levels.

Conclusion

We demonstrated that maternal serologies correlate with symptomatic maternal infection, and higher levels of maternal antibodies are associated with passive neonatal immunity. The maternal immunoglobulin G levels and maternal use of oxygen support, a marker of disease severity, predicted the neonatal immunoglobulin G levels. These data will further guide the screening for this uniquely linked population of mothers and their neonates and can aid in developing maternal vaccination strategies.

Antibody response in patients admitted to the hospital with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from a multicenter study across Spain

AIM

To evaluate the serological response against SARS-CoV-2 in a multicenter study representative of the Spanish COVID pandemic.

METHODS

IgG and IgM + IgA responses were measured on 1466 samples from 1236 Spanish COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital, two commercial ELISA kits (Vircell SL, Spain) based on the detection of antibodies against the viral spike protein and nucleoprotein, were used.

RESULTS

Approximately half of the patients presented antibodies (56.8% were IgM + IgA positive and 43.0% were IgG positive) as soon as 2 days after the first positive PCR result. Serological test positivity increased with time from the PCR test, and 10 days after the first PCR result, 91.5% and 88.0% of the patients presented IgM + IgA and IgG antibodies, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The high values of sensitivity attained in the present study from a relatively early period of time after hospitalization support the use of the evaluated serological assays as supplementary diagnostic tests for the clinical management of COVID-19.

COVID-19 Diagnostic Strategies Part II: Protein-Based Technologies

After the initiation of the current outbreak, humans' lives have been profoundly impacted by COVID-19. During the first months, no rapid and reliable detecting tool was readily available to sufficiently respond to the requirement of massive testing. In this situation, when the development of an effective vaccine requires at least a few months, it is crucial to be prepared by developing and commercializing affordable, accurate, rapid and adaptable biosensors not only to fight Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) but also to be armed to avoid the pandemic in the earliest stages in the future. The COVID-19 diagnostic tools are categorized into two main groups of Nucleic Acid (NA)-based and protein-based tests. To date, nucleic acid-based detection has been announced as the gold-standard strategy for coronavirus detection; however, protein-based tests are promising alternatives for rapid and large-scale screening of susceptible groups. In this review, we discuss the current protein-based biosensing tools, the research advances and the potential protein-detecting strategies for COVID-19 detection. This narrative review aims to highlight the importance of the diagnostic tests, encourage the academic research groups and the companies to eliminate the shortcomings of the current techniques and step forward to mass-producing reliable point-of-care (POC) and point-of-need (PON) adaptable diagnostic tools for large-scale screening in the future outbreaks.

Postconvalescent SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Neutralizing Antibodies are Elevated in Individuals with Poor Metabolic Health

PURPOSE

Comorbidities making up metabolic syndrome (MetS), such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and chronic cardiovascular disease can lead to increased risk of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) with a higher morbidity and mortality. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are higher in severely or critically ill COVID-19 patients, but studies have not focused on levels in convalescent patients with MetS, which this study aimed to assess.

METHODS

This retrospective study focused on adult convalescent outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 positive serology during the COVID-19 pandemic at NewYork Presbyterian/Weill Cornell. Data collected for descriptive and correlative analysis included SARS-COV-2 immunoglobin G (IgG) levels and history of MetS comorbidities from April 17, 2020 to May 20, 2020. Additional data, including SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and lipid levels were collected and analyzed for a second cohort from May 21, 2020 to June 21, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies were measured in a subset of the study cohort.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly higher in convalescent individuals with MetS comorbidities. When adjusted for age, sex, race, and time duration from symptom onset to testing, increased SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels remained significantly associated with obesity (P < 0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly higher in patients with HbA1c ≥6.5% compared to those with HbA1c <5.7% (P = 0.0197) and remained significant on multivariable analysis (P = 0.0104). A positive correlation was noted between BMI and antibody levels [95% confidence interval: 0.37 (0.20-0.52) P < 0.0001]. Neutralizing antibody titers were higher in COVID-19 individuals with BMI ≥ 30 (P = 0.0055).

CONCLUSION

Postconvalescent SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralizing antibodies are elevated in obese patients, and a positive correlation exists between BMI and antibody levels.

Convalescent Plasma for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery from COVID-19 infection and development of antibodies against the virus is an attractive option for either prophylactic or therapeutic treatment, since antibodies may have direct or indirect antiviral activities and immunotherapy has proven effective in principle and in many clinical reports.

OBJECTIVE

We seek to characterize the latest advances and evidence in the use of CP for COVID-19 through a systematic review and quantitative analysis, identify knowledge gaps in this setting, and offer recommendations and directives for future research.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were continuously searched for studies assessing the use of CP for COVID-19, including clinical studies, commentaries, reviews, guidelines or protocols, and in vitro testing of CP antibodies. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal of all clinical studies was conducted using a universal tool independent of study designs. A meta-analysis of case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Substantial literature has been published covering various aspects of CP therapy for COVID-19. Of the references included in this review, a total of 243 eligible studies including 64 clinical studies, 79 commentary articles, 46 reviews, 19 guidance and protocols, and 35 in vitro testing of CP antibodies matched the criteria. Positive results have been mostly observed so far when using CP for the treatment of COVID-19. There were remarkable heterogeneities in the CP therapy with respect to patient demographics, donor antibody titers, and time and dose of CP administration. The studies assessing the safety of CP treatment reported low incidence of adverse events. Most clinical studies, in particular case reports and case series, had poor quality. Only 1 RCT was of high quality. Randomized and nonrandomized data were found in 2 and 11 studies, respectively, and were included for meta-analysis, suggesting that CP could reduce mortality and increase viral clearance. Despite promising pilot studies, the benefits of CP treatment can only be clearly established through carefully designed RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is developing support for CP therapy, particularly for patients who are critically ill or mechanically ventilated and resistant to antivirals and supportive care. These studies provide important lessons that should inform the planning of well-designed RCTs to generate more robust knowledge for the efficacy of CP in patients with COVID-19. Future research is necessary to fill the knowledge gap regarding prevention and treatment for patients with COVID-19 with CP while other therapeutics are being developed.

Association of Age With SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response

Importance

Accumulating evidence suggests that children infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to manifest mild symptoms and are at a lower risk of developing severe respiratory disease compared with adults. It remains unknown how the immune response in children differs from that of adolescents and adults.

Objective

To investigate the association of age with the quantity and quality of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used 31 426 SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results from pediatric and adult patients. Data were collected from a New York City hospital from April 9 to August 31, 2020. The semiquantitative immunoglobin (Ig) G levels were compared between 85 pediatric and 3648 adult patients. Further analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibody profiles was performed on sera from 126 patients aged 1 to 24 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity rates and IgG levels were evaluated in patients from a wide range of age groups (1-102 years). SARS-CoV-2 IgG level, total antibody (TAb) level, surrogate neutralizing antibody (SNAb) activity, and antibody binding avidity were compared between children (aged 1-10 years), adolescents (aged 11-18 years), and young adults (aged 19-24 years).

Results

Among 31 426 antibody test results (19 797 [63.0%] female patients), with 1194 pediatric patients (mean [SD] age, 11.0 [5.3] years) and 30 232 adult patients (mean [SD] age, 49.2 [17.1] years), the seroprevalence in the pediatric (197 [16.5%; 95% CI, 14.4%-18.7%]) and adult (5630 [18.6%; 95% CI, 18.2%-19.1%]) patient populations was similar. The SARS-CoV-2 IgG level showed a negative correlation with age in the pediatric population (r = -0.45, P < .001) and a moderate but positive correlation with age in adults (r = 0.24, P < .001). Patients aged 19 to 30 years exhibited the lowest IgG levels (eg, aged 25-30 years vs 1-10 years: 99 [44-180] relative fluorescence units [RFU] vs 443 [188-851] RFU). In the subset cohort aged 1 to 24 years, IgG, TAb, SNAb and avidity were negatively correlated with age (eg, IgG: r = -0.51; P < .001). Children exhibited higher median (IQR) IgG levels, TAb levels, and SNAb activity compared with adolescents (eg, IgG levels: 473 [233-656] RFU vs 191 [82-349] RFU; P < .001) and young adults (eg, IgG levels: 473 [233-656] RFU vs 85 [38-150] RFU; P < .001). Adolescents also exhibited higher median (IQR) TAb levels, IgG levels, and SNAb activity than young adults (eg, TAb levels: 961 [290-2074] RFU vs 370 [125-697]; P = .006). In addition, children had higher antibody binding avidity compared with young adults, but the difference was not significant.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this study suggest that SARS-CoV-2 viral specific antibody response profiles are distinct in different age groups. Age-targeted strategies for disease screening and management as well as vaccine development may be warranted.

Evolution of antibody immunity to SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected 78 million individuals and is responsible for over 1.7 million deaths to date. Infection is associated with the development of variable levels of antibodies with neutralizing activity, which can protect against infection in animal models^1,2. Antibody levels decrease with time, but, to our knowledge, the nature and quality of the memory B cells that would be required to produce antibodies upon reinfection has not been examined. Here we report on the humoral memory response in a cohort of 87 individuals assessed at 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection with SARS-CoV-2. We find that titres of IgM and IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 decrease significantly over this time period, with IgA being less affected. Concurrently, neutralizing activity in plasma decreases by fivefold in pseudotype virus assays. By contrast, the number of RBD-specific memory B cells remains unchanged at 6.2 months after infection. Memory B cells display clonal turnover after 6.2 months, and the antibodies that they express have greater somatic hypermutation, resistance to RBD mutations and increased potency, indicative of continued evolution of the humoral response. Immunofluorescence and PCR analyses of intestinal biopsies obtained from asymptomatic individuals at 4 months after the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) revealed the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids and immunoreactivity in the small bowel of 7 out of 14 individuals. We conclude that the memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner that is consistent with antigen persistence.

Humoral immunological kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and diagnostic performance of serological assays for coronavirus disease 2019: an analysis of global reports

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to rise and second waves are reported in some countries, serological test kits and strips are being considered to scale up an adequate laboratory response. This study provides an update on the kinetics of humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and performance characteristics of serological protocols (lateral flow assay [LFA], chemiluminescence immunoassay [CLIA] and ELISA) used for evaluations of recent and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. A thorough and comprehensive review of suitable and eligible full-text articles was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Wordometer and medRxiv from 10 January to 16 July 2020. These articles were searched using the Medical Subject Headings terms ‘COVID-19’, ‘Serological assay’, ‘Laboratory Diagnosis’, ‘Performance characteristics’, ‘POCT’, ‘LFA’, ‘CLIA’, ‘ELISA’ and ‘SARS-CoV-2’. Data from original research articles on SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection ≥second day postinfection were included in this study. In total, there were 7938 published articles on humoral immune response and laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19. Of these, 74 were included in this study. The detection, peak and decline period of blood anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgG and total antibodies for point-of-care testing (POCT), ELISA and CLIA vary widely. The most promising of these assays for POCT detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 at day 3 postinfection and peaked on the 15th day; ELISA products detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG at days 2 and 6 then peaked on the eighth day; and the most promising CLIA product detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 at day 1 and peaked on the 30th day. The most promising LFA, ELISA and CLIA that had the best performance characteristics were those targeting total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies followed by those targeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG then IgM. Essentially, the CLIA-based SARS-CoV-2 tests had the best performance characteristics, followed by ELISA then POCT. Given the varied performance characteristics of all the serological assays, there is a need to continuously improve their detection thresholds, as well as to monitor and re-evaluate their performances to assure their significance and applicability for COVID-19 clinical and epidemiological purposes.

TOP-Plus is a Versatile Biosensor Platform for Monitoring SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Durability

BACKGROUND

There is a concern that low initial SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers in individuals may drop to undetectable levels within months after infection. Although this may raise concerns over long term immunity, both the antibody levels and avidity of the antibody-antigen interaction should be examined to understand the quality of the antibody response.

METHODS

A testing-on-a-probe-plus panel (TOP-Plus) was developed, which included a newly developed avidity assay built into the previously described SARS-CoV-2 TOP assays that measured total antibody (TAb), surrogate neutralizing antibody (SNAb), IgM and IgG on a versatile biosensor platform. TAb and SNAb levels were compared with avidity in previously infected individuals at 1.3 and 6.2 months post-infection in paired samples from 80 COVID-19 patients.

RESULTS

The newly designed avidity assay in this TOP panel correlated well with a reference Bio-Layer Interferometry avidity assay (R=0.88). The imprecision of the TOP avidity assay was less than 9%. Although TAb and neutralization activity (by SNAb) decreased between 1.3 and 6.2 months post infection, the antibody avidity increased significantly (P < 0.0001).

COVID-19: Understanding Inter-Individual Variability and Implications for Precision Medicine

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by heterogeneity in susceptibility to the disease and severity of illness. Understanding inter-individual variation has important implications for not only allocation of resources but also targeting patients for escalation of care, inclusion in clinical trials, and individualized medical therapy including vaccination. In addition to geographic location and social vulnerability, there are clear biological differences such as age, sex, race, presence of comorbidities, underlying genetic variation, and differential immune response that contribute to variability in disease manifestation. These differences may have implications for precision medicine. Specific examples include the observation that androgens regulate the expression of the enzyme transmembrane protease, serine 2 which facilitates severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral entry into the cell; therefore, androgen deprivation therapy is being explored as a treatment option in males infected with COVID-19. An immunophenotyping study of COVID-19 patients has shown that a subset develop T cytopenia which has prompted a clinical trial that is testing the efficacy of interleukin-7 in these patients. Predicting which COVID-19 patients will develop progressive disease that will require hospitalization has important implications for clinical trials that target outpatients. Enrollment of patients at low risk for progression of disease and hospitalization would likely not result in such therapy demonstrating efficacy. There are efforts to use artificial intelligence to integrate digital data from smartwatch applications or digital monitoring systems and biological data to enable identification of the high risk COVID-19 patient. The ultimate goal of precision medicine using such modern technology is to recognize individual differences to improve health for all.

Testing-on-a-probe biosensors reveal association of early SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies and surrogate neutralizing antibodies with mortality in COVID-19 patients

The association of mortality with the early humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection within the first few days after onset of symptoms (DAOS) has not been thoroughly investigated partly due to a lack of sufficiently sensitive antibody testing methods. Here we report two sensitive and automated testing-on-a-probe (TOP) biosensor assays for SARS-CoV-2 viral specific total antibodies (TAb) and surrogate neutralizing antibodies (SNAb), which are suitable for clinical use. The TOP assays employ an RBD-coated quartz probe using a Cy5-Streptavidin-polysacharide conjugate to improve sensitivity and minimize interference. Disposable cartridges containing pre-dispensed reagents require no liquid manipulation or fluidics during testing. The TOP-TAb assay exhibited higher sensitivity in the 0-7 DAOS window than a widely used FDA-EUA assay. The rapid and automated TOP-SNAb correlated well with two well-established SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization tests. The clinical utility of the TOP assays was demonstrated by evaluating early antibody responses in 120 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive adult hospitalized patients. Higher TAb and SNAb positivity rates and more robust antibody responses at patient's initial hospital presentation were seen in inpatients who survived COVID-19 than those who died in the hospital. Survival analysis using the Cox Proportional Hazards Model showed that patients who had negative TAb and/or SNAb at initial hospital presentation were at a higher risk of in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, TAb and SNAb levels at presentation were inversely associated with SARS-CoV-2 viral load based on concurrent RT-PCR testing. Overall, the sensitive and automated TAb and SNAb assays allow the detection of early SARS-CoV-2 antibodies which associate with mortality.

Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected 78 million individuals and is responsible for over 1.7 million deaths to date. Infection is associated with development of variable levels of antibodies with neutralizing activity that can protect against infection in animal models. Antibody levels decrease with time, but the nature and quality of the memory B cells that would be called upon to produce antibodies upon re-infection has not been examined. Here we report on the humoral memory response in a cohort of 87 individuals assessed at 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection. We find that IgM, and IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody titers decrease significantly with IgA being less affected. Concurrently, neutralizing activity in plasma decreases by five-fold in pseudotype virus assays. In contrast, the number of RBD-specific memory B cells is unchanged. Memory B cells display clonal turnover after 6.2 months, and the antibodies they express have greater somatic hypermutation, increased potency and resistance to RBD mutations, indicative of continued evolution of the humoral response. Analysis of intestinal biopsies obtained from asymptomatic individuals 4 months after coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) onset, using immunofluorescence, or polymerase chain reaction, revealed persistence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids and immunoreactivity in the small bowel of 7 out of 14 volunteers. We conclude that the memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner that is consistent with antigen persistence.

Neutralizing Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Convalescent Sera

Passive transfer of antibodies from COVID-19 convalescent patients is being used as an experimental treatment for eligible patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections. The United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidelines for convalescent plasma initially recommended target antibody titers of 160. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in sera from recovered COVID-19 patients using plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT) at moderate (PRNT50) and high (PRNT90) stringency thresholds. We found that neutralizing activity significantly increased with time post symptom onset (PSO), reaching a peak at 31-35 days PSO. At this point, the number of sera having neutralizing titers of at least 160 was approximately 93% (PRNT50) and approximately 54% (PRNT90). Sera with high SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels (>960 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay titers) showed maximal activity, but not all high-titer sera contained neutralizing antibody at FDA recommended levels, particularly at high stringency. These results underscore the value of serum characterization for neutralization activity.

Multiplexed detection and quantification of human antibody response to COVID-19 infection using a plasmon enhanced biosensor platform

The 2019 SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has illustrated the need for rapid and accurate diagnostic tests. In this work, a multiplexed grating-coupled fluorescent plasmonics (GC-FP) biosensor platform was used to rapidly and accurately measure antibodies against COVID-19 in human blood serum and dried blood spot samples. The GC-FP platform measures antibody-antigen binding interactions for multiple targets in a single sample, and has 100% selectivity and sensitivity (n = 23) when measuring serum IgG levels against three COVID-19 antigens (spike S1, spike S1S2, and the nucleocapsid protein). The GC-FP platform yielded a quantitative, linear response for serum samples diluted to as low as 1:1600 dilution. Test results were highly correlated with two commercial COVID-19 antibody tests, including an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and a Luminex-based microsphere immunoassay. To demonstrate test efficacy with other sample matrices, dried blood spot samples (n = 63) were obtained and evaluated with GC-FP, yielding 100% selectivity and 86.7% sensitivity for diagnosing prior COVID-19 infection. The test was also evaluated for detection of multiple immunoglobulin isotypes, with successful detection of IgM, IgG and IgA antibody-antigen interactions. Last, a machine learning approach was developed to accurately score patient samples for prior COVID-19 infection, using antibody binding data for all three COVID-19 antigens used in the test.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020.

METHODS

Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.

Performance evaluation of antibody-based point-of-care devices intended for the identification of immune responses to SARS-CoV-2

The novel coronavirus outbreak caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in December of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The local outbreak quickly rose to pandemic level that has spread to more than 188 countries with more than 19 million cases and 732,467 deaths worldwide. The current recommendation for testing is RT-PCR based tests of nasopharyngeal or alternatively nasal- and/or oropharyngeal swabs that detects infection with SARS-CoV-2 to diagnose acute infection. However, there is an urgent need for a quick and accurate antibody-based point-of-care test method to quickly identify evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among people who might be missed through active case finding and surveillance efforts. Serology tests measure the presence of antibodies in serum after infection. Here we compared the performance characteristics of 6 commercially available antibody-based point-of-care devices and their potential for identification of individuals infected at some time by SARS-CoV-2.

Testing-on-a-probe biosensors reveal association of early SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies and surrogate neutralizing antibodies with mortality in COVID-19 patients

The association of mortality with early humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection within the first few days after onset of symptoms (DAOS) has not been thoroughly investigated partly due to a lack of sufficiently sensitive antibody testing methods. Here we report two sensitive and automated testing-on-a-probe (TOP) biosensor assays for SARS-CoV-2 viral specific total antibodies (TAb) and surrogate neutralizing antibodies (SNAb), which are suitable for clinical use. The TOP assays employ an RBD-coated quartz probe using a Cy5-Streptavidin-polysacharide conjugate to improved sensitivity and minimize interference. Disposable cartridge containing pre-dispensed reagents requires no liquid manipulation or fluidics during testing. The TOP-TAb assay exhibited higher sensitivity in the 0-7 DAOS window than a widely used FDA-EUA assay. The rapid (18 min) and automated TOP-SNAb correlated well with two well-established SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization tests. The clinical utility of the TOP assays was demonstrated by evaluating early antibody responses in 120 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive adult hospitalized patients. Higher baseline TAb and SNAb positivity rates and more robust antibody responses were seen in patients who survived COVID-19 than those who died in the hospital. Survival analysis using the Cox Proportional Hazards Model showed that patients who were TAb and SNAb negative at initial hospital presentation were at a higher risk of in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, TAb and SNAb levels at presentation were inversely associated with SARS-CoV-2 viral load based on concurrent RT-PCR testing. Overall, the sensitive and automated TAb and SNAb assays allow detection of early SARS-CoV-2 antibodies which associate with mortality.

Antibody kinetics and serologic profiles of SARS-CoV-2 infection using two serologic assays

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging threat worldwide. This study aims to assess the serologic profiles and time kinetics of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients with COVID-19 using two immunoassays.

Methods

A total of 97 samples serially collected from 17 patients with COVID-19 and 137 negative control samples were analyzed for IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 using the AFIAS COVID-19 Ab (Boditech Med Inc., Chuncheon, Republic of Korea) and the EDI^™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA Kit (Epitope Diagnostics, Inc., San Diego, CA).

Results

With both assays, IgM and IgG rapidly increased after 7 days post symptom onset (PSO). IgM antibody levels reached a peak at 15–35 d PSO and gradually decreased. IgG levels gradually increased and remained at similar levels after 22–35 d. The diagnostic sensitivities of IgM/IgG for ≤14d PSO were 21.4%/35.7~57.1% and increased to 41.2~52.9%/88.2~94.1% at >14 d PSO with specificities of 98.5%/94.2% for AFIAS COVID-19 Ab and 100.0%/96.4% for EDI^™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA Kit. Among 137 negative controls, 12 samples (8.8%) showed positive or indeterminate results.

Conclusions

The antibody kinetics against SARS-CoV-2 are similar to common findings of acute viral infectious diseases. Antibody testing is useful for ruling out SARS-CoV-2 infection after 14 d PSO, detecting past infection, and epidemiologic surveys.

A 63-Year-Old Woman with a History of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection Who Was Seronegative and Treated with Convalescent Plasma

BACKGROUND This is a case report of an immunocompromised patient with a history of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and persistent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who was seronegative and successfully treated with convalescent plasma. CASE REPORT A 63-year-old woman with a past medical history of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in remission while on maintenance therapy with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, obinutuzumab, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing over 12 weeks and persistently tested seronegative for immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies using SARS-CoV-2 IgG chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay technology. During this time, the patient experienced waxing and waning of symptoms, which included fever, myalgia, and non-productive cough, but never acquired severe respiratory distress. She was admitted to our hospital on illness day 88, and her symptoms resolved after the administration of convalescent plasma. CONCLUSIONS As the understanding of the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, we can currently only speculate about the occurrence of chronic infection vs. reinfection. The protective role of antibodies and their longevity against SARS-CoV-2 remain unclear. Since humoral immunity has an integral role in SARS-CoV-2 infection, various phase 3 vaccine trials are underway. In the context of this pandemic, the present case demonstrates the challenges in our understanding of testing and treating immunocompromised patients.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19:Serologic Testing

BACKGROUND

The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA.

OBJECTIVE

IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on eight diagnostic recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.

Development, clinical translation, and utility of a COVID-19 antibody test with qualitative and quantitative readouts

The COVID-19 global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to place an immense burden on societies and healthcare systems. A key component of COVID-19 control efforts is serologic testing to determine the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and quantify individual immune responses to prior infection or vaccination. Here, we describe a laboratory-developed antibody test that uses readily available research-grade reagents to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in patient blood samples with high sensitivity and specificity. We further show that this test affords the estimation of viral spike-specific IgG titers from a single sample measurement, thereby providing a simple and scalable method to measure the strength of an individual's immune response. The accuracy, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness of this test makes it an excellent option for clinical deployment in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients With Cancer

This quality improvement study examines the efficacy of a repeated testing protocol for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients with cancer.