Performance Characteristics of High-Throughput Serologic Assays for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 with Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization: A Review

Testing for SARS-CoV-2: lessons learned and current use cases

SUMMARYThe emergence and worldwide dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 required both urgent development of new diagnostic tests and expansion of diagnostic testing capacity on an unprecedented scale. The rapid evolution of technologies that allowed testing to move out of traditional laboratories and into point-of-care testing centers and the home transformed the diagnostic landscape. Four years later, with the end of the formal public health emergency but continued global circulation of the virus, it is important to take a fresh look at available SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies and consider how they should be used going forward. This review considers current use case scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, nucleic acid amplification, and immunologic tests, incorporating the latest evidence for analytical/clinical performance characteristics and advantages/limitations for each test type to inform current debates about how tests should or should not be used.

Evaluation of serum and urine biomarkers for severe COVID-19

Introduction

The new coronavirus disease, COVID-19, poses complex challenges exacerbated by several factors, with respiratory tissue lesions being notably significant among them. Consequently, there is a pressing need to identify informative biological markers that can indicate the severity of the disease. Several studies have highlighted the involvement of proteins such as APOA1, XPNPEP2, ORP150, CUBN, HCII, and CREB3L3 in these respiratory tissue lesions. However, there is a lack of information regarding antibodies to these proteins in the human body, which could potentially serve as valuable diagnostic markers for COVID-19. Simultaneously, it is relevant to select biological fluids that can be obtained without invasive procedures. Urine is one such fluid, but its effect on clinical laboratory analysis is not yet fully understood due to lack of study on its composition.

Methods

Methods used in this study are as follows: total serum protein analysis; ELISA on moderate and severe COVID-19 patients' serum and urine; bioinformatic methods: ROC analysis, PCA, SVM.

Results and discussion

The levels of antiAPOA1, antiXPNPEP2, antiORP150, antiCUBN, antiHCII, and antiCREB3L3 exhibit gradual fluctuations ranging from moderate to severe in both the serum and urine of COVID-19 patients. However, the diagnostic value of individual anti-protein antibodies is low, in both blood serum and urine. On the contrary, joint detection of these antibodies in patients' serum significantly increases the diagnostic value as demonstrated by the results of principal component analysis (PCA) and support vector machine (SVM). The non-linear regression model achieved an accuracy of 0.833. Furthermore, PCA aided in identifying serum protein markers that have the greatest impact on patient group discrimination. The study revealed that serum serves as a superior analyte for describing protein quantification due to its consistent composition and lack of organic salts and drug residues, which can otherwise affect protein stability.

Clinical and laboratory considerations: determining an antibody-based composite correlate of risk for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or severe COVID-19

Much of the global population now has some level of adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 induced by exposure to the virus (natural infection), vaccination, or a combination of both (hybrid immunity). Key questions that subsequently arise relate to the duration and the level of protection an individual might expect based on their infection and vaccination history. A multi-component composite correlate of risk (CoR) could inform individuals and stakeholders about protection and aid decision making. This perspective evaluates the various elements that need to be accommodated in the development of an antibody-based composite CoR for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or development of severe COVID-19, including variation in exposure dose, transmission route, viral genetic variation, patient factors, and vaccination status. We provide an overview of antibody dynamics to aid exploration of the specifics of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. We further discuss anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, sample matrices, testing formats, frequency of sampling and the optimal time point for such sampling. While the development of a composite CoR is challenging, we provide our recommendations for each of these key areas and highlight areas that require further work to be undertaken.

Use of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Tests by US Infectious Disease Physicians: Results of an Emerging Infections Network Survey, March 2022

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests have had limited recommended clinical application during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To inform clinical practice, an understanding is needed of current perspectives of United States-based infectious disease (ID) physicians on the use, interpretation, and need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests.

Methods

In March 2022, members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a national network of practicing ID physicians, were surveyed on types of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays ordered, interpretation of test results, and clinical scenarios for which antibody tests were considered.

Results

Of 1867 active EIN members, 747 (40%) responded. Among the 583 who managed or consulted on COVID-19 patients, a majority (434/583 [75%]) had ordered SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and were comfortable interpreting positive (452/578 [78%]) and negative (405/562 [72%]) results. Antibody tests were used for diagnosing post-COVID-19 conditions (61%), identifying prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (60%), and differentiating prior infection and response to COVID-19 vaccination (37%). Less than a third of respondents had used antibody tests to assess need for additional vaccines or risk stratification. Lack of sufficient evidence for use and nonstandardized assays were among the most common barriers for ordering tests. Respondents indicated that statements from professional societies and government agencies would influence their decision to order SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for clinical decision making.

Conclusions

Practicing ID physicians are using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, and there is an unmet need for clarifying the appropriate use of these tests in clinical practice. Professional societies and US government agencies can support clinicians in the community through the creation of appropriate guidance.

Serology Assays Used in SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Surveys Worldwide: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Assay Features, Testing Algorithms, and Performance

Background: Many serological assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences in the detection mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays limited the comparability of seroprevalence estimates for populations being tested. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of serological assays used in SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence surveys, searching for published articles, preprints, institutional sources, and grey literature between 1 January 2020, and 19 November 2021. We described features of all identified assays and mapped performance metrics by the manufacturers, third-party head-to-head, and independent group evaluations. We compared the reported assay performance by evaluation source with a mixed-effect beta regression model. A simulation was run to quantify how biased assay performance affects population seroprevalence estimates with test adjustment. Results: Among 1807 included serosurveys, 192 distinctive commercial assays and 380 self-developed assays were identified. According to manufacturers, 28.6% of all commercial assays met WHO criteria for emergency use (sensitivity [Sn.] >= 90.0%, specificity [Sp.] >= 97.0%). However, manufacturers overstated the absolute values of Sn. of commercial assays by 1.0% [0.1, 1.4%] and 3.3% [2.7, 3.4%], and Sp. by 0.9% [0.9, 0.9%] and 0.2% [−0.1, 0.4%] compared to third-party and independent evaluations, respectively. Reported performance data was not sufficient to support a similar analysis for self-developed assays. Simulations indicate that inaccurate Sn. and Sp. can bias seroprevalence estimates adjusted for assay performance; the error level changes with the background seroprevalence. Conclusions: The Sn. and Sp. of the serological assay are not fixed properties, but varying features depending on the testing population. To achieve precise population estimates and to ensure the comparability of seroprevalence, serosurveys should select assays with high performance validated not only by their manufacturers and adjust seroprevalence estimates based on assured performance data. More investigation should be directed to consolidating the performance of self-developed assays.

Validation of the GSP®/DELFIA® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Kit Using Dried Blood Samples for High-Throughput Serosurveillance and Standardized Quantitative Measurement of Anti-Spike S1 IgG Antibody Responses Post-Vaccination

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a major global public health crisis. In response, researchers and pharmaceutical companies worked together for the rapid development of vaccines to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with viral infection. Monitoring host immunity following virus infection and/or vaccination is essential to guide vaccination intervention policy. Humoral immune response to vaccination can be assessed with serologic testing, and indeed, many serological immunoassays are now in use. However, these many different assays make the standardization of test results difficult. Moreover, most published serological tests require venous blood sampling, which makes testing large numbers of people complex and costly. Here, we validate the GSP^®/DELFIA^® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG kit using dried blood samples for high-throughput serosurveillance using standard quantitative measurements of anti-spike S1 IgG antibody concentrations. We then apply our validated assay to compare post-vaccination anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG levels from subjects who received a double dose of the AZD1222 vaccine with those vaccinated with a heterologous strategy, demonstrating how this assay is suitable for large-scale screening to achieve a clearer population immune picture.