Evaluation of Orthogonal Testing Algorithm for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies

Risk of hospital admission and death from first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection by age group during the Delta and Omicron periods in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Population-based cross-sectional serosurveys within the Lower Mainland, British Columbia, Canada, showed about 10%, 40% and 60% of residents were infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the sixth (September 2021), seventh (March 2022) and eighth (July 2022) serosurveys. We conducted the ninth (December 2022) and tenth (July 2023) serosurveys and sought to assess risk of severe outcomes from a first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection during intersurvey periods.

METHODS

Using increments in cumulative infection-induced seroprevalence, population census, discharge abstract and vital statistics data sets, we estimated infection hospitalization and fatality ratios (IHRs and IFRs) by age and sex for the sixth to seventh (Delta/Omicron-BA.1), seventh to eighth (Omicron-BA.2/BA.5) and eighth to ninth (Omicron-BA.5/BQ.1) intersurvey periods. As derived, IHR and IFR estimates represent the risk of severe outcome from a first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection acquired during the specified intersurvey period.

RESULTS

The cumulative infection-induced seroprevalence was 74% by December 2022 and 79% by July 2023, exceeding 80% among adults younger than 50 years but remaining less than 60% among those aged 80 years and older. Period-specific IHR and IFR estimates were consistently less than 0.3% and 0.1% overall. By age group, IHR and IFR estimates were less than 1.0% and up to 0.1%, respectively, except among adults aged 70-79 years during the sixth to seventh intersurvey period (IHR 3.3% and IFR 1.0%) and among those aged 80 years and older during all periods (IHR 4.7%, 2.2% and 3.5%; IFR 3.3%, 0.6% and 1.3% during the sixth to seventh, seventh to eighth and eighth to ninth periods, respectively). The risk of severe outcome followed a J-shaped age pattern. During the eighth to ninth period, we estimated about 1 hospital admission for COVID-19 per 300 newly infected children younger than 5 years versus about 1 per 30 newly infected adults aged 80 years and older, with no deaths from COVID-19 among children but about 1 death per 80 newly infected adults aged 80 years and older during that period.

INTERPRETATION

By July 2023, we estimated about 80% of residents in the Lower Mainland, BC, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 overall, with low risk of hospital admission or death; about 40% of the oldest adults, however, remained uninfected and at highest risk of a severe outcome. First infections among older adults may still contribute substantial burden from COVID-19, reinforcing the need to continue to prioritize this age group for vaccination and to consider them in health care system planning.

Risk assessment and antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers

Background

Preventing infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for protecting healthcare systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we investigated the seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs in Norway with low-transmission settings.

Methods

From March 2020, we recruited HCWs at four medical centres. We determined infection by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and serological testing and evaluated the association between infection and exposure variables, comparing our findings with global data in a meta-analysis. Anti-spike IgG antibodies were measured after infection and/or vaccination in a longitudinal cohort until June 2021.

Results

We identified a prevalence of 10.5% (95% confidence interval, CI: 8.8-12.3) in 2020 and an incidence rate of 15.0 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI: 12.5-17.8) among 1,214 HCWs with 848 person-years of follow-up time. Following infection, HCWs (n = 63) mounted durable anti-spike IgG antibodies with a half-life of 4.3 months since their seropositivity. HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 (n = 46) had higher anti-spike IgG titres than naive HCWs (n = 186) throughout the 5 months after vaccination with BNT162b2 and/or ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 vaccines in 2021. In a meta-analysis including 20 studies, the odds ratio (OR) for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was significantly higher with household contact (OR 12.6; 95% CI: 4.5-35.1) and occupational exposure (OR 2.2; 95% CI: 1.4-3.2).

Conclusion

We found high and modest risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection with household and occupational exposure, respectively, in HCWs, suggesting the need to strengthen infection prevention strategies within households and medical centres. Infection generated long-lasting antibodies in most HCWs; therefore, we support delaying COVID-19 vaccination in primed HCWs, prioritising the non-infected high-risk HCWs amid vaccine shortage.

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.

Incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 within a healthcare worker cohort during the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Preventing SARS-CoV2 infections in healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical for healthcare delivery. We aimed to estimate and characterize the prevalence and incidence of COVID-19 in a US HCW cohort and to identify risk factors associated with infection.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of HCWs at 3 Bay Area medical centers using serial surveys and SARS-CoV-2 viral and orthogonal serological testing, including measurement of neutralizing antibodies. We estimated baseline prevalence and cumulative incidence of COVID-19. We performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations of baseline factors with incident infections and evaluated the impact of time-varying exposures on time to COVID-19 using marginal structural models.

RESULTS

2435 HCWs contributed 768 person years of follow-up time. We identified 21/2435 individuals with prevalent infection, resulting in a baseline prevalence of 0.86% (95% CI, 0.53% to 1.32%). We identified 70/2414 (2.9%) incident infections yielding a cumulative incidence rate of 9.11 cases per 100 person years (95% CI 7.11 to 11.52). Community contact with a known COVID-19 case most strongly correlated with increased hazard for infection (HR 8.1, 95% CI, 3.8, 17.5). High-risk work-related exposures (i.e., breach in protective measures) drove an association between work exposure and infection (HR 2.5, 95% CI, 1.3-4.8). More cases were identified in HCW when community case rates were high.

CONCLUSION

We observed modest COVID-19 incidence despite consistent exposure at work. Community contact was strongly associated with infections but contact at work was not unless accompanied by high-risk exposure.

Disease Prevalence Matters: Challenge for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

While sensitivity and specificity are important characteristics for any diagnostic test, the influence of prevalence is equally, if not more, important when such tests are used in community screening. We review the concepts of positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) and how disease prevalence affects false positive/negative rates. In low-prevalence situations, the PPV decreases drastically. We demonstrate how using two tests in an orthogonal fashion can be especially beneficial in low-prevalence settings and greatly improve the PPV of the diagnostic test results.

Evaluation of different platforms for the detection of anti-SARS coronavirus-2 antibodies, Thailand

BACKGROUND

Antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) help determine previous infection in individuals, regardless of whether they are asymptomatic or symptomatic. The detection of antibodies serves several purposes, including supporting other assays for disease diagnosis, conducting seroepidemiological studies, and evaluating vaccines. Many platforms of immunological methods for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection and their performance require validation.

METHODS

This study evaluated the test performance of three autoanalyzer-based assays (Architect IgG, Vitros IgG, and Vitros total Ig) and one manual ELISA (Wantai total Ig) against a microneutralization (microNT) assay on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Furthermore, an indirect immunofluorescence assay verified the discordant results between the microNT and commercial assays. The test sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were determined based on four groups of 1005 serum samples: 102 COVID-19 prepandemic sera, 45 anti-SARS-CoV-2 positive sera, 366 sera of people at risk, and 492 sera of citizens returning from countries with a high prevalence of infection.

RESULTS

The analyses as a whole showed that the performance of these commercial assays was comparable. Each group was also analysed separately to gain further insight into test performance. The Architect did not detect two positive sera of people at risk (prevalence of infection 0.55%). The other methods correctly identified these two positive sera but yielded varying false-positive results. The group of returning travellers with an infection rate of 28.3% (139 of 492) better differentiated the test performance of individual assays.

CONCLUSIONS

High-throughput Architect and Vitros autoanalyzers appear appropriate for working on large sample sizes in countries that can afford the cost. The Wantai ELISA, while requiring more individual time and technical skill, may provide reliable results at a lower cost. The selection of assays will depend on the laboratory facilities and feasibility.

Evaluation of the performance of 25 SARS-CoV-2 serological rapid diagnostic tests using a reference panel of plasma specimens at the Uganda Virus Research Institute

INTRODUCTION

Serological testing is needed to better understand the epidemiology of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgM and IgG, to the virus. The performance of 25 of these RDTs was evaluated.

METHODS

A serological reference panel of 50 positive and 100 negative plasma specimens was developed from SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody positive patients and pre-pandemic SARS-CoV-2-negative specimens collected in 2016. Test performance of the 25 RDTs was evaluated against this panel.

RESULTS

A total of 10 RDTs had a sensitivity ≥98%, while 13 RDTs had a specificity ≥98% to anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Four RDTs (Boson, MultiG, Standard Q, and VivaDiag) had both sensitivity and specificity ≥98% to anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Only three RDTs had a sensitivity ≥98%, while 10 RDTs had a specificity ≥98% to anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies. Three RDTs (Autobio, MultiG, and Standard Q) had sensitivity and specificity ≥98% to combined IgG/IgM. The RDTs that performed well also had perfect or almost perfect inter-reader agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

This evaluation identified three RDTs with a sensitivity and specificity to IgM/IgG antibodies of ≥98% with the potential for widespread antibody testing in Uganda.

SARS-CoV-2 serology: Validation of high-throughput chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) platforms and a field study in British Columbia

Background

SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is required for estimating population seroprevalence and vaccine response studies. It may also increase case identification when used as an adjunct to routine molecular testing. We performed a validation study and evaluated the use of automated high-throughput assays in a field study of COVID-19-affected care facilities.

Methods

Six automated assays were assessed: 1) DiaSorin LIAISON^TM SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG; 2) Abbott ARCHITECT^TM SARS-CoV-2 IgG; 3) Ortho VITROS^TM Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total; 4) VITROS^TM Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG; 5) Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total Assay; and 6) Roche Elecsys^TM Anti-SARS-CoV-2. The validation study included 107 samples (42 known positive; 65 presumed negative). The field study included 296 samples (92 PCR positive; 204 PCR negative or not PCR tested). All samples were tested by the six assays.

Results

All assays had sensitivities >90% in the field study, while in the validation study, 5/6 assays were >90% sensitive and DiaSorin was 79% sensitive. Specificities and negative predictive values were >95% for all assays. Field study estimated positive predictive values at 1–10% disease prevalence were 100% for Siemens, Abbott and Roche, while DiaSorin and Ortho assays had lower PPVs at 1% prevalence, but PPVs increased at 5–10% prevalence. In the field study, addition of serology increased diagnoses by 16% compared to PCR testing alone.

Conclusions

All assays evaluated in this study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for samples collected at least 14 days post-symptom onset, while sensitivity was variable 0–14 days after infection. The addition of serology to the outbreak investigations increased case detection by 16%.

Comparative analysis of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between asymptomatic and convalescent patients

The SARS-CoV-2 viral pandemic has induced a global health crisis, which requires more in-depth investigation into immunological responses to develop effective treatments and vaccines. To understand protective immunity against COVID-19, we screened over 60,000 asymptomatic individuals in the Southeastern United States for IgG antibody positivity against the viral Spike protein, and approximately 3% were positive. Of these 3%, individuals with the highest anti-S or anti-RBD IgG level showed a strong correlation with inhibition of ACE2 binding and cross-reactivity against non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus S-proteins. We also analyzed samples from 94 SARS-CoV-2 patients and compared them with those of asymptomatic individuals. SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic patients had decreased antibody responses, ACE2 binding inhibition, and antibody cross-reactivity. Our study shows that healthy individuals can mount robust immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 without symptoms. Furthermore, IgG antibody responses against S and RBD may correlate with high inhibition of ACE2 binding in individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection or post vaccination.

Unexpected False-Positive Rates in Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 Serology Using the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG Assay

OBJECTIVES

Serologic assay performance studies for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-​2) in pediatric populations are lacking, and few seroprevalence studies have routinely incorporated orthogonal testing to improve accuracy.

METHODS

Remnant serum samples for routine bloodwork from 2,338 pediatric patients at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh were assessed using the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG (EuroIGG) assay. Reactive cases with sufficient volume were also tested using 3 additional commercial assays.

RESULTS

Eighty-five specimens were reactive according to the EuroIGG, yielding 3.64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.91%-4.48%) seropositivity, of which 73 specimens had sufficient remaining volume for confirmation by orthogonal testing. Overall, 19.18% (95% CI, 10.18%-28.18%) of samples were positive on a second and/or third orthogonal assay. This 80.82% false positivity rate is disproportionate to the expected false positivity rate of 50% given our pediatric population prevalence and assay performance.

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric populations, false-positive SARS-CoV-2 serology may be more common than assay and prevalence parameters would predict, and further studies are needed to establish the performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology in children.

Practical guidance for clinical laboratories for SARS-CoV-2 serology testing

The landscape of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing is rapidly evolving. While serology testing has limited diagnostic capacity for acute infection, its role in providing population-based information on positivity rates and informing evidence-based decision making for public health recommendations is increasing. With the global availability of vaccines, there is increasing pressure on clinical laboratories to provide antibody screening and result interpretation for vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. Here we present the most up-to-date data on SARS-CoV-2 antibody timelines, including the longevity of antibodies, and the production and detection of neutralizing antibodies. Additionally, we provide practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories to both verify commercial serology assays and choose appropriate testing algorithms for their local populations.

Impaired T-cell and antibody immunity after COVID-19 infection in chronically immunosuppressed transplant recipients

Assessment of T-cell immunity to the COVID-19 coronavirus requires reliable assays and is of great interest, given the uncertain longevity of the antibody response. Some recent reports have used immunodominant spike (S) antigenic peptides and anti-CD28 co-stimulation in varying combinations to assess T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2. These assays may cause T-cell hyperstimulation and could overestimate antiviral immunity in chronically immunosuppressed transplant recipients, who are predisposed to infections and vaccination failures. Here, we evaluate CD154-expressing T-cells induced by unselected S antigenic peptides in 204 subjects-103 COVID-19 patients and 101 healthy unexposed subjects. Subjects included 72 transplanted and 130 non-transplanted subjects. S-reactive CD154+T-cells co-express and can thus substitute for IFNγ (n=3). Assay reproducibility in a variety of conditions was acceptable with coefficient of variation of 2-10.6%. S-reactive CD154+T-cell frequencies were a) higher in 42 healthy unexposed transplant recipients who were sampled pre-pandemic, compared with 59 healthy non-transplanted subjects (p=0.02), b) lower in Tr COVID-19 patients compared with healthy transplant patients (p<0.0001), c) lower in Tr patients with severe COVID-19 (p<0.0001), or COVID-19 requiring hospitalization (p<0.05), compared with healthy Tr recipients. S-reactive T-cells were not significantly different between the various COVID-19 disease categories in NT recipients. Among transplant recipients with COVID-19, cytomegalovirus co-infection occurred in 34%; further, CMV-specific T-cells (p<0.001) and incidence of anti-receptor-binding-domain IgG (p=0.011) were lower compared with non-transplanted COVID-19 patients. Healthy unexposed transplant recipients exhibit pre-existing T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 infection leads to impaired T-cell and antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 and increased risk of CMV co-infection in transplant recipients.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG seroconversion profiles among hospitalized patients in two US cities

The clinical and public health utility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing requires a better understanding of the dynamics of the humoral response to infection. To track seroconversion of IgG and IgM antibodies in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and its association with patient and clinical factors and outcomes. Residual patient specimens were analyzed on the Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 instrument using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and prototype SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay. Age, sex, comorbidities, symptom onset date, mortality, and specimen collection date were obtained from electronic medical records. Three hundred fifty-nine longitudinal samples were collected from 89 hospitalized patients 0 to 82 days postsymptom onset. Of all, 51.7% of the patients developed IgG and IgM antibodies simultaneously; 32.8% seroconverted for IgM before IgG. On average, patients seroconverted for IgG by 8 days and for IgM by 7 days postsymptom onset. All patients achieved IgG seropositivity by 19 days and IgM seropositivity by 17 days. Median time to IgG and IgM seroconversion was prolonged and initial levels of IgG were lower in immunocompromised patients and patients <65 years of age compared to immune competent patients and those ≥65 years of age. Immunocompromised patients also had persistently lower levels of IgM that peaked on day 17.6 and decreased thereafter compared to immune competent patients. IgM seroconversion in patients who died reached significantly higher levels later after symptom onset than in those who recovered. SARS-CoV-2 infected patients have similar time to seroconversion for IgG and IgM. However, differences in immune status and age alter time to seroconversion. These results may help guide serologic testing application in COVID-19 management.

AACC Practical Recommendations for Implementing and Interpreting SARS-CoV-2 EUA and LDT Serologic Testing in Clinical Laboratories

BACKGROUND

The clinical laboratory continues to play a critical role in managing the coronavirus pandemic. Numerous FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) and laboratory developed test (LDT) serologic assays have become available. The performance characteristics of these assays and their clinical utility continue to be defined in real-time during this pandemic. The American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) convened a panel of experts from clinical chemistry, microbiology, and immunology laboratories, the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) industry, and regulatory agencies to provide practical recommendations for implementation and interpretation of these serologic tests in clinical laboratories.

CONTENT

The currently available EUA serologic tests and platforms, information on assay design, antibody classes including neutralizing antibodies, and the humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are discussed. Verification and validation of EUA and LDTs are described along with quality management approach. Four indications for serologic testing are outlined. Result interpretation, reporting comments, and the role of orthogonal testing are also recommended.

SUMMARY

This document aims to provide a comprehensive reference for laboratory professionals and healthcare workers to appropriately implement SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays in the clinical laboratory and interpret test results during this pandemic. Given the more frequent occurrence of outbreaks associated with either vector-borne or respiratory pathogens, this document will be a useful resource in planning for similar scenarios in the future.

Multicenter Evaluation of the Clinical Performance and the Neutralizing Antibody Activity Prediction Properties of 10 High-Throughput Serological Assays Used in Clinical Laboratories

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic second wave is emerging, it is of the upmost importance to screen the population immunity in order to keep track of infected individuals. Consequently, immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with high specificity and positive predictive values are needed to obtain an accurate epidemiological picture. As more data accumulate about the immune responses and the kinetics of neutralizing-antibody (nAb) production in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, new applications are forecast for serological assays such as nAb activity prediction in convalescent-phase plasma from recovered patients. This multicenter study, involving six hospital centers, determined the baseline clinical performances, reproducibility, and nAb level correlations of 10 commercially available immunoassays. In addition, three lateral-flow chromatography assays were evaluated, as these devices can be used in logistically challenged areas. All assays were evaluated using the same patient panels in duplicate, thus enabling accurate comparison of the tests. Seven immunoassays examined in this study were shown to have excellent specificity (98 to 100%) and good to excellent positive predictive values (82 to 100%) when used in a low (5%)-seroprevalence setting. We observed sensitivities as low as 74% and as high as 95% at ≥15 days after symptom onset. The determination of optimized cutoff values through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses had a significant impact on the diagnostic resolution of several enzyme immunoassays by increasing the sensitivity significantly without a large trade-off in specificity. We found that spike-based immunoassays seem to be better correlates of nAb activity. Finally, the results reported here will add to the general knowledge of the interlaboratory reproducibility of clinical performance parameters of immunoassays and provide new evidence about nAb activity prediction.

Evaluation of dried blood spots as alternative sampling material for serological detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using established ELISAs

OBJECTIVES

During the current pandemic, antibody testing based on venous serum helps to determine whether the tested person has been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Alternatively, capillary blood can be taken via a finger prick (dried blood spots, DBS). In this study, paired DBS and venipuncture samples were tested using two serological assays to evaluate the usability of DBS for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

METHODS

Paired samples of DBS and venous serum were collected from 389 volunteers, of whom 75 had a recent PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies against both viral S1 and nucleocapsid protein (NCP) antigens using two ELISAs. Degree of agreement and correlation coefficients between ELISA results based on the two sampling methods were calculated.

RESULTS

Results of DBS showed almost perfect agreement and high correlations with results from corresponding serum samples in both the S1-based ELISA and the NCP-based ELISA.

CONCLUSIONS

ELISA results derived from DBS showed very high agreement to those obtained with serum, supposing adequate usability and robustness of DBS as sample material for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In the near future, large-scale epidemiological screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 will be carried out. Since DBS reduce the strain on healthcare institutions regarding sample collection, they have a potential to facilitate efficient community- and population-based screening in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

An Original ELISA-Based Multiplex Method for the Simultaneous Detection of 5 SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies Directed against Different Antigens

Strategies to detect SARS-CoV-2 are increasingly being developed. Among them, serological methods have been developed. Nevertheless, although these may present an interesting clinical performance, they are often directed against only one antigen. This study aims at evaluating the clinical performance of an innovative multiplex immunoassay (i.e., CoViDiag assay) detecting simultaneously the presence of antibodies directed against N, S1, S2, RBD and NTD antigens. Sensitivity was evaluated in 135 samples obtained from 94 rRT-PCR confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Non-SARS-CoV-2 sera (n = 132) collected before the COVID-19 pandemic with potential cross-reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay were included in the specificity analysis. The antibody signature was also studied in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. The specificity of the CoViDiag assay was excellent for all antibodies (99.2 to 100%) using adapted cut-offs. None of the false positive samples were positive for more than one antibody. The sensitivity obtained from samples collected 14 days since symptom onset varied from 92.0 to 100.0% depending on the antibody considered. Among samples collected more than 14 days after symptom onset, 12.8, 66.3, 3.5, 9.3, 5.8 and 2.3% were positive for 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0 antibodies, respectively. A trend toward higher antibody titers was observed in hospitalized patient in the early days since symptom onset. However, no significant difference was observed compared to non-hospitalized patients after 14 days since symptom onset. The clinical performance of the CoViDiag 5 IgG assay is sufficient to recommend its use for the detection and the characterization of the antibody signature following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The combination of several antigens in the same test improves the overall specificity and sensitivity of the test. Further research is needed to investigate whether this strategy may be of interest to identify severe disease outcome in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.