Evaluation of five widely used serologic assays for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2

Diagnostic performance of rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2: the COVid-19 AntiGen (COVAG) extension study

Background

This study is the extension of the COVAG study. We compared two RATs, the Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test (Abbott) and the SD Biosensor Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche), against RT-PCR on the foil of new variants.

Methods

We included 888 all-comers at a diagnostic center between October 20, 2021, and March 18, 2022. RT-PCR-positive samples with a Ct value ≤32 were examined for SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Findings

The sensitivity of the Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT were 65 and 67%, respectively. For both RATs, lower Ct values were significantly correlated with higher sensitivity. For samples with Ct values ≤25, the sensitivities of the Roche-RAT and of the Abbott-RAT were 96 and 95%, for Ct values 25-30 both were 19%, and for Ct values ≥30 they were 6 and 2%, respectively. The RATs had substantially higher sensitivities in symptomatic than asymptomatic participants (76, 77%, vs. 29, 31%, for Abbott-RAT, Roche-RAT, respectively) and in participants referred to testing by their primary care physician (84, 85%) compared to participants who sought testing due to referral by the health department (55, 58%) or a warning by the Corona-Warn-App (49, 49%). In persons with self-reported previous COVID-19 sensitivities were markedly lower than in patients without previous COVID-19: 27% vs. 75% for Roche-RAT and 27% vs. 73% for Abbott-RAT. We did not find significant correlation between vaccination status and sensitivity. The Omicron variant was detected with a sensitivity of 94 and 92%, the delta variant with a sensitivity of 80 and 80% for Abbott-RAT and Roche-RAT, respectively. This difference is attributable to the lower Ct values of the Omicron samples compared to the Delta samples. When adjusted for the Ct value, a multivariate logistic regression did not show a significant difference between Omicron and Delta. In terms of sensitivity, we found no significant difference between the wild-type and the Omicron and Delta variants, but a significantly lower sensitivity to the alpha variant compared to the other variants.The specificities were > 99% overall.

Rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2-a synopsis of the medical evidence

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic, continues to influence health, economy, and stability worldwide. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is important to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. With the commercial availability of certified antigen (Ag) rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), which can be used to identify an infection with SARS-CoV-2 an easy-to-use tool was introduced. Self-tests can offer advantages to complement professionally administered rapid antigen detection or nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Compared to real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), Ag-RDTs are cost inexpensive, do not need specialized laboratory equipment, facilitating high-throughput testing. However, Ag-RDT sensitivities are strongly dependent on the viral load within the specimen, which has limited their application in clinical settings so far. The methodical limitations of Ag-RDTs may produce false negative test results, particularly when specimens with low viral loads are examined. This may facilitate viral transmissions if protective measurements are lifted mistakenly.

Sex difference in the discordance between Abbott Architect and EuroImmun serological assays

Background

This study evaluated the discordance between Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and EUROIMMUN SARS-COV-2 ELISA in a seroprevalence study.

Methods

From June 10 to August 15, 2020, 8,246 specimens were dually evaluated by the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (EI) assays. Sex-stratified phi correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concordance between Abbott and EI assay's quantitative results. Multivariable mixed-effect logistic models were implemented to evaluate the association between assay positivity and sex on a low prevalence sample while controlling for age, race, ethnicity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, immunosuppressive therapy, and autoimmune disease.

Results

EI positivity among males was 2.1-fold that of females; however, no significant differences in Abbott positivity were observed between sexes. At the manufacturer-recommended threshold, the phi correlation coefficient for the Abbott and EI qualitative results among females (Φ = 0.47) was 34% greater than males (Φ = 0.35). The unadjusted and fully adjusted models yielded a strong association between sex and positive EI result for the low prevalence subgroup (unadjusted OR: 2.24, CI: 1.63, 3.11, adjusted OR: 3.40, CI: 2.15, 5.39). A similar analysis of Abbott positivity in the low prevalence subgroup did not find an association with any of the covariates examined. Significant quantitative and qualitative discordance was observed between Abbott and EI throughout the seroprevalence study. Our results suggest the presence of sex-associated specificity limitations with the EI assay. As these findings may extend to other anti-S assays utilized for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence investigations, further investigation is needed to evaluate the generalizability of these findings.

Variation in antibody titers determined by Abbott and Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 assays in vaccinated healthcare workers

SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody measurement is important for evaluating COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. We quantified and compared anti-spike (S) antibodies using different commercial immunoassays. We tested serum samples from 70 SARS-CoV-2-naive health care workers 2 weeks after vaccination with a single dose of BNT162b2, 2 and 4 weeks, and 3 months after the second dose of BNT162b2. The following quantitative assays were used: Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche-S), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant [Abbott-IgG(S)], and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgM (Abbott-IgM). All samples tested positive for Roche-S and Abbott-IgG antibodies after the second dose, with 83.6% Abbott-IgM positive rate. Roche-S and Abbott-IgG(S) correlated significantly in all samples (r = 0.920, p < 0.0001), and the Roche-S and Abbott-IgG(S) assay showed a strong correlation with each other at each time point after vaccination. Roche-S and Abbott-IgG(S) antibody titers were correlated with age; their rate of decline was age-dependent in males but not in females. Abbott-IgG(S) antibody titers decreased from 2 weeks after the second dose. Roche-S antibody titers peaked 2 weeks after the second dose in 76.2% of the participants; the titers recovered 3 months post-vaccination after declining at week 4 in 40.7% of the participants. The concordance between Roche-S and Abbott-IgG(S) antibody titers over time was 47.5%. Most participants presented significantly high Roche-S and Abbott-IgG(S) antibody titers after immunization. Some measurements were inconsistent with titer changes between these assays, possibly because of differences in the immunoglobulin-specificity of the kits.

Adult Patients with Cancer Have Impaired Humoral Responses to Complete and Booster COVID-19 Vaccination, Especially Those with Hematologic Cancer on Active Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The exclusion of patients with cancer in clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, in combination with the high rate of severe infections, highlights the need for optimizing vaccination strategies. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published available data from prospective and retrospective cohort studies that included patients with either solid or hematological malignancies according to the PRISMA Guidelines. A literature search was performed in the following databases: Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Google Scholar. Overall, 70 studies were included for the first and second vaccine dose and 60 studies for the third dose. The Effect Size (ES) of the seroconversion rate after the first dose was 0.41 (95%CI: 0.33-0.50) for hematological malignancies and 0.56 (95%CI: 0.47-0.64) for solid tumors. The seroconversion rates after the second dose were 0.62 (95%CI: 0.57-0.67) for hematological malignancies and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.93) for solid tumors. After the third dose, the ES for seroconversion was estimated at 0.63 (95%CI: 0.54-0.72) for hematological cancer and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.75-0.97) for solid tumors. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate potential factors affecting immune response. Production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was found to be more affected in patients with hematological malignancies, which was attributed to the type of malignancy and treatment with monoclonal antibodies according to the subgroup analyses. Overall, this study highlights that patients with cancer present suboptimal humoral responses after COVID-19 vaccination. Several factors including timing of vaccination in relevance with active therapy, type of therapy, and type of cancer should be considered throughout the immunization process.

Comparison of the measured values of quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody assays

Background

The concentration of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is frequently being measured for clinical and epidemiological purposes. The aim of this study was to examine whether the results of different quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody assays are comparable.

Material and methods

The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Roche ElecsysT Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S, and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-QuantiVac assay were compared with 110 sera from patients 6-9 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the WHO First International SARS-CoV-2 antibody standard 20/136. The antibody values were converted into WHO binding antibody units (BAU)/ml. The diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was determined and the antibody values were compared.

Results

The diagnostic sensitivity ranged from 57.3% (Euroimmun) to 100% (Roche). The antibody concentration values of different assays correlated with Pearson coefficients of correlation between 0.729 and 0.953. The geometric mean antibody values of the Abbott, Siemens and Euroimmun assay varied by a factor of 1.1-1.2. The geometric mean antibody values of the Roche assay were 2.4-2.8 times higher than those from the other assays. The assays yielded varying results with the WHO International antibody standard.

Conclusions

The quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays from Abbott, Siemens, Roche and Euroimmun correlate strongly but differ in the antibody concentrations. Therefore, the same assay should be used when testing patients repeatedly. In addition, the name of the assay used and the manufacturer should be indicated along with the test results.