Comparison of commercial SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays with a full virus endpoint dilution neutralization test in two different cohorts

Performance Analysis of Serodiagnostic Tests to Characterize the Incline and Decline of the Individual Humoral Immune Response in COVID-19 Patients: Impact on Diagnostic Management

Serodiagnostic tests for antibody detection to estimate the immunoprotective status regarding SARS-CoV-2 support diagnostic management. This study aimed to investigate the performance of serological assays for COVID-19 and elaborate on test-specific characteristics. Sequential samples (n = 636) of four panels (acute COVID-19, convalescent COVID-19 (partly vaccinated post-infection), pre-pandemic, and cross-reactive) were tested for IgG by indirect immunofluorescence test (IIFT) and EUROIMMUN EUROLINE Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Profile (IgG). Neutralizing antibodies were determined by a virus neutralization test (VNT) and two surrogate neutralization tests (sVNT, GenScript cPass, and EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 NeutraLISA). Analysis of the acute and convalescent panels revealed high positive (78.3% and 91.6%) and negative (91.6%) agreement between IIFT and Profile IgG. The sVNTs revealed differences in their positive (cPass: 89.4% and 97.0%, NeutraLISA: 71.5% and 72.1%) and negative agreement with VNT (cPass: 92.3% and 50.0%, NeutraLISA: 95.1% and 92.5%) at a diagnostic specificity of 100% for all tests. The cPass showed higher inhibition rates than NeutraLISA at VNT titers below 1:640. Cross-reactivities were only found by cPass (57.1%). Serodiagnostic tests, which showed substantial agreement and fast runtime, could provide alternatives for cell-based assays. The findings of this study suggest that careful interpretation of serodiagnostic results obtained at different times after SARS-CoV-2 antigen exposure is crucial to support decision-making in diagnostic management.

Development of automated microfluidic immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and antigen

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic. Rapid and sensitive detection of the virus soon after infection is important for the treatment and prevention of transmission of COVID-19, and detection of antibodies is important for epidemiology, assessment of vaccine immunogenicity, and identification of the natural reservoir and intermediate host(s). Patient nasal or oropharyngeal swabs or saliva used in conjunction with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, whereas lateral flow immunoassays (LFI) detect SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in blood. Although effective, these assays have poor sensitivity (e.g., LFI) or are labor intensive and time consuming (PCR and ELISA). Here we describe the development of rapid, automated ELISA-based immunoassays to detect SARS-CoV-2 antigens and antibodies against the virus. The Simple Plex™ platform uses rapid microfluidic reaction kinetics for sensitive analyte detection with small sample volumes. We developed three sensitive <90-min Simple Plex immunoassays that measure either the SARS-CoV-2 antigens or the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, including neutralizing antibodies, in serum from COVID-19 patients.

Validation of a SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Test Detecting Neutralizing Antibodies against the Major Variants of Concern

SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or vaccination elicit a broad range of neutralizing antibody responses against the different variants of concern (VOC). We established a new variant-adapted surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and assessed the neutralization activity against the ancestral B.1 (WT) and VOC Delta, Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5. Analytical performances were compared against the respective VOC to the reference virus neutralization test (VNT) and two CE-IVD labeled kits using three different cohorts collected during the COVID-19 waves. Correlation analyses showed moderate to strong correlation for Omicron sub-variants (Spearman's r = 0.7081 for BA.1, r = 0.7205 for BA.2, and r = 0.6042 for BA.5), and for WT (r = 0.8458) and Delta-sVNT (r = 0.8158), respectively. Comparison of the WT-sVNT performance with two CE-IVD kits, the "Icosagen SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody ELISA kit" and the "Genscript cPass, kit" revealed an overall good correlation ranging from 0.8673 to -0.8773 and a midway profile between both commercial kits with 87.76% sensitivity and 90.48% clinical specificity. The BA.2-sVNT performance was similar to the BA.2 Genscript test. Finally, a correlation analysis revealed a strong association (r = 0.8583) between BA.5-sVNT and VNT sVNT using a double-vaccinated cohort (n = 100) and an Omicron-breakthrough infection cohort (n = 91). In conclusion, the sVNT allows for the efficient prediction of immune protection against the various VOCs.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay, Surrogate Neutralization and Virus Neutralization Test

BACKGROUND

Since sensitivity and specificity vary widely between tests, SARS-CoV-2 serology results should be interpreted with caution.

METHODS

The study included serum samples from patients who had recovered from COVID-19 (n = 71), individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (n = 84), and asymptomatic individuals (n = 33). All samples were tested for the presence of binding antibodies (enzyme immunoassay; EIA), neutralizing (NT) antibodies (virus neutralization test; VNT), and surrogate NT (sNT) antibodies (surrogate virus neutralization test; sVNT) of SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2-binding antibodies were detected in 71 (100%) COVID-19 patients, 77 (91.6%) vaccinated individuals, and 4 (12.1%) control subjects. Among EIA-positive samples, VNT was positive (titer ≥ 8) in 100% of COVID-19 patients and 63 (75.0%) of the vaccinated individuals, while sVNT was positive (>30% inhibition) in 62 (87.3%) patients and 59 (70.2%) vaccinated individuals. The analysis of antibody levels showed a significant moderate positive correlation between EIA and VNT, a moderate positive correlation between EIA and sVNT, and a strong positive correlation between VNT and sVNT. The proportion of positive sVNT detection rate was associated with VNT titer. The lowest positivity (72.4%/70.8%) was detected in samples with low NT titers (8/16) and increased progressively from 88.2% in samples with titer 32 to 100% in samples with titer 256.

CONCLUSIONS

sVNT appeared to be a reliable method for the assessment COVID-19 serology in patients with high antibody levels, while false-negative results were frequently observed in patients with low NT titers.