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

ADLM Guidance Document on Laboratory Diagnosis of Respiratory Viruses

Respiratory viral infections are among the most frequent infections experienced worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for testing and currently several tests are available for the detection of a wide range of viruses. These tests vary widely in terms of the number of viral pathogens included, viral markers targeted, regulatory status, and turnaround time to results, as well as their analytical and clinical performance. Given these many variables, selection and interpretation of testing requires thoughtful consideration. The current guidance document is the authors' expert opinion based on the preponderance of available evidence to address key questions related to best practices for laboratory diagnosis of respiratory viral infections including who to test, when to test, and what tests to use. An algorithm is proposed to help laboratories decide on the most appropriate tests to use for the diagnosis of respiratory viral infections.

Performance of Three Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Anti-S and One Anti-N Immunoassays for the Monitoring of Immune Status and Vaccine Response

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of three anti-S and one anti-N assays that were available to the project in detecting antibody levels after three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson). It also aimed to assess the association of age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccine timing, and vaccine side effects on antibody levels in a cohort of 827 individuals. In September 2021, 698 vaccinated individuals donated blood samples as part of the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) COVID-19 Immunity Study. These individuals also participated in a comprehensive survey covering demographic information, vaccination status, and associated side effects. Additionally, 305 age- and gender-matched samples were obtained from the ADLM 2015 sample bank as pre-COVID-19-negative samples. All these samples underwent antibody level analysis using three anti-S assays, namely Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman assay), Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Ortho assay), Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens assay), and one anti-N antibody assay: Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab assay (BioRad assay). A total of 827 samples (580 COVID-19 samples and 247 pre-COVID-19 samples) received results for all four assays and underwent further analysis. Beckman, Ortho, and Siemens anti-S assays showed an overall sensitivity of 99.5%, 97.6%, and 96.9%, and specificity of 90%, 100%, and 99.6%, respectively. All three assays indicated 100% sensitivity for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine and boosters, and over 99% sensitivity for the Pfizer vaccine. Sensitivities varied from 70.4% (Siemens), 81.5% (Ortho), and 96.3% (Beckman) for individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. BioRad anti-N assays demonstrated 46.2% sensitivity and 99.25% specificity based on results from individuals with self-reported infection. The highest median anti-S antibody levels were measured in individuals who received the Moderna vaccine, followed by Pfizer and then Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Higher anti-S antibody levels were significantly associated with younger age and closer proximity to the last vaccine dose but were not associated with gender, race, or ethnicity. Participants with higher anti-S levels experienced significantly more side effects as well as more severe side effects (e.g., muscle pain, chills, fever, and moderate limitations) (p < 0.05). Anti-N antibody levels only indicated a significant correlation with headache. This study indicated performance variations among different anti-S assays, both among themselves and when analyzing individuals with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Caution should be exercised when conducting large-scale studies to ensure that the same platform and/or assays are used for the most effective interpretation of the data.

Robust Response of the Clinical Laboratory to the COVID-19 Pandemic despite Significant Challenges

BACKGROUND

Clinical laboratories immediately provided rapid, reliable, and high-throughout diagnostic testing for COVID-19, which was an essential component in combating the pandemic. As the pandemic evolved, the clinical laboratory was faced with additional challenges. However, there are limited studies on the impact of the pandemic on the clinical laboratory over the past 3 years.

METHODS

The American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) sent 8 surveys over a 32-month time period to international clinical laboratory leadership asking questions about COVID-19 testing, supplies, staffing, and lessons learned.

RESULTS

There were a total of 191 unique respondents: 133 laboratories in the US and 58 laboratories from 37 other countries participated. By May 2020, more than 70% of laboratories offered COVID-19 diagnostic testing with average turnaround times ranging from 1 to 24 h. Daily COVID-19 testing volumes peaked in January of 2022 at a median of 775 tests per day. Throughout the pandemic, supplies and staffing concerns increased. In most of the 8 surveys, 55% to 65% of laboratories reported they were unable to obtain supplies. Obtaining reagents and test kits was the most problematic. Staffing challenges continue to be a significant concern and most laboratories have struggled hiring testing personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Survey results were utilized to demonstrate the impact of the pandemic on the clinical laboratory community, and importantly, findings were presented to the White House Coronavirus Taskforce. Overall, the clinical laboratories had a robust response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and despite ongoing and evolving challenges, continue to provide rapid diagnostic testing.

Clinical Utility of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Testing and Defining a Correlate of Protection

Herein, we review established clinical use cases for SARS-CoV-2 antibody measures, which include diagnosis of recent prior infection, isolating high titer convalescent plasma, diagnosing multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), and booster dosing in the immunosuppressed and other populations. We then address whether an antibody correlate of protection (CoP) for SARS-CoV-2 has been successfully defined with the following considerations: Antibody responses in the immunocompetent, vaccine type, variants, use of binding antibody tests vs. neutralization tests, and endpoint measures. In the transition from the COVID-19 pandemic to endemic, there has been much interest in defining an antibody CoP. Due to the high mutability of respiratory viruses and our current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 variants defining a CoP for prevention of infection is unrealistic. However, a CoP may be defined for prevention of severe disease requiring hospitalization and/or death. Most SARS-CoV-2 CoP research has focused on neutralization measurements. However, there can be significant differences in neutralization test methods, and disparate responses to new variants depending on format. Furthermore, neutralization assays are often impractical for high throughput applications (e.g., assessing humoral immune response in populations or large cohorts). Nevertheless, CoP studies using neutralization measures are reviewed to determine where there is consensus. Alternatively, binding antibody tests could be used to define a CoP. Binding antibody assays tend to be highly automatable, high throughput, and therefore practical for large population applications. Again, we review studies for consensus on binding antibody responses to vaccines, focusing on standardized results. Binding antibodies directed against the S1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) of the viral spike protein can provide a practical, indirect measure of neutralization. Initially, a response for S1-RBD antibodies may be selected that reflects the peak response in immunocompetent populations and may serve as a target for booster dosing in the immunocompromised. From existing studies reporting peak S1-RBD responses in standardized units, an approximate range of 1372-2744 BAU/mL for mRNA and recombinant protein vaccines was extracted that could serve as an initial CoP target. This target would need to be confirmed and potentially adjusted for updated vaccines, and almost certainly for other vaccine formats (i.e., viral vector). Alternatively, a threshold or response could be defined based on outcomes over time (i.e., prevention of severe disease). We also discuss the precedent for clinical measurement of antibodies for vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., hepatitis B). Lastly, cellular immunity is briefly addressed for its importance in the nature and durability of protection.

Immune biomarkers associated with COVID-19 disease severity in an urban, hospitalized population

Objectives

We sought to identify immune biomarkers associated with severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients admitted to a large urban hospital during the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Design

The study population consisted of SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects admitted for COVID-19 (n = 58) or controls (n = 14) at the Los Angeles County University of Southern California Medical Center between April 2020 through December 2020. Immunologic markers including chemokine/cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IP-10, MCP-1, TNF-α) and serologic markers against SARS-CoV-2 antigens (including spike subunits S1 and S2, receptor binding domain, and nucleocapsid) were assessed in serum collected on the day of admission using bead-based multiplex immunoassay panels.

Results

We observed that body mass index (BMI) and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were significantly elevated in patients with the highest COVID-19 disease severity. IP-10 was significantly elevated in COVID-19 patients and was associated with increased SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Interactions among all available variables on COVID-19 disease severity were explored using a linear support vector machine model which supported the importance of BMI and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Conclusions

Our results confirm the known adverse association of BMI on COVID-19 severity and suggest that IP-10 and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could be useful to identify patients most likely to experience the most severe forms of the disease.

Lessons learned: A look back at the performance of nine COVID-19 serologic assays and their proposed utility

BACKGROUND

Serologic assays for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been proposed to assist with the acute diagnosis of infection, support epidemiological studies, identify convalescent plasma donors, and evaluate vaccine response.

METHODS

We report an evaluation of nine serologic assays: Abbott (AB) and Epitope (EP) IgG and IgM, EUROIMMUN (EU) IgG and IgA, Roche anti-N (RN TOT) and anti-S (RS TOT) total antibody, and DiaSorin (DS) IgG. We evaluated 291 negative controls (NEG CTRL), 91 PCR positive (PCR POS) patients (179 samples), 126 convalescent plasma donors (CPD), 27 healthy vaccinated donors (VD), and 20 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients (45 samples).

RESULTS

We observed good agreement with the method performance claims for specificity (93-100%) in NEG CTRL but only 85% for EU IgA. The sensitivity claims in the first 2 weeks of symptom onset was lower (26-61%) than performance claims based on > 2 weeks since PCR positivity. We observed high sensitivities (94-100%) in CPD except for AB IgM (77%), EP IgM (0%). Significantly higher RS TOT was observed for Moderna vaccine recipients then Pfizer (p-values < 0.0001). A sustained RS TOT response was observed for the five months following vaccination. HSCT recipients demonstrated significantly lower RS TOT than healthy VD (p < 0.0001) at dose 2 and 4 weeks after.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests against the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to aid in acute diagnosis. RN TOT and RS TOT can readily identify past-resolved infection and vaccine response in the absence of native infection. We provide an estimate of expected antibody response in healthy VD over the time course of vaccination for which to compare antibody responses in immunosuppressed patients.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels on hospital admission as a correlate of protection against mortality

BACKGROUND

Millions of people have now been vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, it is still unclear which antibody levels provide protection against mortality. It is further unknown whether measuring antibody concentrations on hospital admission allows for identifying patients with a high risk of mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether anti-SARS-CoV2-spike antibodies on hospital admission predict in-hospital mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicentre cohort study on 1152 hospitalized patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a polymerase chain reaction-based assay. Patients were classified by vaccination status. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies were determined on hospital admission. The investigated end point was in-hospital mortality for any cause.

RESULTS

Spike antibodies on hospital admission were significantly lower in non-survivors in both non-vaccinated (73 U/ml, 95%CI 0-164 vs. 175 U/ml, 95%CI 124-235, p = 0.002) and vaccinated patients (1056 U/ml, 95%CI 701-1411 vs. 1668 U/ml, 95%CI 1580-1757, p < 0.001). Further, spike antibodies were significantly lower in fully vaccinated and boostered patients who died compared to those who survived (mean 883 U/ml, 95%CI 406-1359 vs. 1292 U/ml, 95%CI 1152-1431, p = 0.017 and 1485 U/ml, 95%CI 836-2133 vs. 2050 U/ml, 95%CI 1952-2149, p = 0.036). Patients infected with the currently prevailing Omicron variant were three times more likely to die if spike antibodies were <1200 U/ml (OR 3.458, 95%CI 1.562-7.656, p = 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, this value increased to an aOR of 4.079 (95%CI 1.809-9.198, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Anti-SARS-CoV2 spike-antibody levels on hospital admission are inversely associated with in-hospital mortality. Hospitalized patients with lower antibody levels have a higher risk of mortality.

PCR combined with serologic testing improves the yield and efficiency of SARS-CoV-2 infection hunting: A study in 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals

Background

The global epidemiological situation of COVID-19 remains serious. The rapid hunting of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the key means for preventing transmission.

Methods

A total of 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals were screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on PCR and serologic testing. The yield and efficiency of different screening algorithms were evaluated.

Result

Among the 40,689 consecutive overseas arrivals, 56 (0.14%) subjects were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. The asymptomatic rate was 76.8%. When the algorithm based on PCR alone was used, the identification yield of a single round of PCR (PCR1) was only 39.3% (95% CI: 26.1-52.5%). It took at least four rounds of PCR to achieve a yield of 92.9% (95% CI: 85.9-99.8%). Fortunately, an algorithm based on a single round of PCR combined with a single round of serologic testing (PCR1+ Ab1) greatly improved the screening yield to 98.2% (95% CI: 94.6-100.0%) and required 42,299 PCR and 40,689 serologic tests that cost 6,052,855 yuan. By achieving a similar yield, the cost of PCR1+ Ab1 was 39.2% of that of four rounds of PCR. For hunting one case in PCR1+ Ab1, 769 PCR and 740 serologic tests were required, costing 110,052 yuan, which was 63.0% of that of the PCR1 algorithm.

Conclusion

Comparing an algorithm based on PCR alone, PCR combined with a serologic testing algorithm greatly improved the yield and efficiency of the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Unspecific reactivity must be excluded in COVID-19 epidemiological analyses or virus tracing based on serologic testing: Analysis of 46,777 post-pandemic samples and 1,114 pre-pandemic samples

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Serologic testing is complementary to nucleic acid screening to identify SARS-CoV-2. This study aimed to evaluate unspecific reactivity in SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests.

Materials and methods

Total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies from 46,777 subjects who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 were retrospectively studied to evaluate the incidence and characteristics of the unspecific reactivity. A total of 1,114 pre-pandemic samples were also analysed to compare unspecific reactivity.

Results

The incidence of unspecific reactivity in anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody testing was 0.361% in 46,777 post-pandemic samples, similar to the incidence of 0.359% (4/1,114) in 1,114 pre-pandemic samples (p = 0.990). Subjects ≥ 19 years old had a 2.753-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.130–6.706] higher probability of unspecific reactivity than subjects &lt; 19 years old (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the sexes. The unspecific reactivity was associated with 14 categories within the disease spectrum, with three tops being the skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases (0.93%), respiratory system diseases (0.78%) and neoplasms diseases (0.76%). The percentage of patients with a titer ≥ 13.87 cut-off index (COI) in the unspecific reactivity was 7.69%.

Conclusion

Our results suggest a unspecific reactivity incidence rate of 0.361% involving 14 categories on the disease spectrum. Unspecific reactivity needs to be excluded when performing serologic antibody testing in COVID-19 epidemiological analyses or virus tracing.

Update of Guidelines for Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19 in Korea

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and the Korea Disease Prevention and Control Agency have announced guidelines for diagnosing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in clinical laboratories in Korea. With the ongoing pandemic, we propose an update of the previous guidelines based on new scientific data. This update includes recommendations for tests that were not included in the previous guidelines, including the rapid molecular test, antigen test, antibody test, and self-collected specimens, and a revision of the previous recommendations. This update will aid clinical laboratories in performing laboratory tests for diagnosing COVID-19.

Observational Study of Receptor Binding Domain Spike Antibody Responses to 3 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccinations in Noninfected Subjects: Parallel Neutralizing Antibody and Cardiac Troponin I and T Observations

Background

Our goals were to demonstrate receptor binding domain spike 1 (RBD S1) protein antibody (Ab) kinetic responses to multiple vaccines over approximately 180 days, neutralizing Ab effectiveness, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and T (hs-cTnT) responses in postvaccinated, non-SARS-CoV-2–infected subjects.

Methods

Blood specimens were collected pre- and postvaccinations from seronegative subjects. RDB S1 Abs were measured by the novel Qorvo Biotechnologies Omnia platform. Neutralizing Abs and hs-cTnI and hs-cTnT were measured on the ET Healthcare Pylon 3D.

Results

Two-dose vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) had peak RBD S1 Ab concentrations about 45 to 55 days after both doses and showed declines over the next 50 to 70 days. The Janssen vaccine showed lower RBD S1 Ab peak concentrations, continued to increase over time, and plateaued after 60 days. There was strong neutralizing Ab response post vaccinations, with only 3 specimens, shortly before and shortly after vaccination, not showing a response. Specimens showed no hs-cTnI (all < 3 ng/L) and hs-cTnT (all < 6 ng/L) increases or changes over time.

Conclusions

We demonstrate in seronegative SARS-CoV-2 subjects that Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations provide strong, neutralizing RBD S1 Ab effectiveness, based on 2 different assays after 2 doses, with the Janssen single-dose vaccine showing a lower RBD S1 Ab response over 4 to 6 months. No myocardial injury was associated with the Pfizer postvaccination. The Qorvo Biotechnologies RBD S1 Ab assay measured on the Omnia platform has potential as a point-of-care platform.

Immunity to SARS-CoV-2: What Do We Know and Should We Be Testing for It?

Preexisting immunity to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was nonexistent in humans, which coupled with high transmission rates of certain SARS-CoV-2 variants and limited vaccine uptake or availability, has collectively resulted in an ongoing global pandemic. The identification and establishment of one or multiple correlates of protection (CoP) against infectious pathogens is challenging, but beneficial from both the patient care and public health perspectives. Multiple studies have shown that neutralizing antibodies, whether generated following SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination, or a combination of both (i.e., hybrid immunity), as well as adaptive cellular immune responses, serve as CoPs for COVID-19. However, the diverse number and type of serologic assays, alongside the lack of cross-assay standardization and emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants with immune evasive characteristics, have collectively posed challenges to determining a robust CoP 'threshold' and for the routine utilization of these assays to document 'immunity,' as is commonly done for other vaccine preventable diseases. Here, we discuss what CoPs are, review our current understanding of infection-induced, vaccine-elicited and hybrid immunity to COVID-19 and summarize the current and potential future utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing.

Simultaneous Measurement of IgM and IgG Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Spike, RBD, and Nucleocapsid Multiplexed in a Single Assay on the xMAP INTELLIFLEX DR-SE Flow Analyzer

The multiplex capabilities of the new xMAP INTELLIFLEX DR-SE flow analyzer were explored by modifying a serological assay previously used to characterize the IgG antibody to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The goal was to examine the instrument's performance and to simultaneously measure IgM and IgG antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in a single assay. Specific antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S), receptor binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid (N) proteins were investigated in 310 symptomatic case patients using a fluorescent microsphere immunoassay and simultaneous detection of IgM and IgG. Neutralization potential was studied using the addition of soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to block antibody binding. A profile extending to 180 days from symptom onset (DFSO) was described for antibodies specific to each viral antigen. Generally, IgM levels peaked and declined rapidly ∼3-4 weeks following infection, whereas S- and RBD-specific IgG plateaued at 80 DFSO. ACE2 more effectively prevented IgM and IgG binding in convalescent cases > 30 DFSO, suggesting those antibodies had greater neutralization potential. This work highlighted the multiplex and multi-analyte potential of the xMAP INTELLIFLEX DR-SE, and provided further evidence for antigen-specific IgM and IgG trajectories in acute and convalescent cases. IMPORTANCE The xMAP INTELLIFLEX DR-SE enabled simultaneous and semi-quantitative detection of both IgM and IgG to three different SARS-CoV-2 antigens in a single assay. The assay format is advantageous for rapid and medium-throughput profiling using a small volume of specimen. The xMAP INTELLIFLEX DR-SE technology demonstrated the potential to include numerous SARS-CoV-2 antigens; future work could incorporate multiple spike protein variants in a single assay. This could be an important feature for assessing the serological response to emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serological Diagnostic Tests and Antibody Kinetics in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients

Serological testing is recommended to support the detection of undiagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the performance of serological assays has not been sufficiently evaluated. Hence, the performance of six severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binding antibody assays [three chemiluminescence (CLIAs) and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)] and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was analyzed in a total of 988 serum samples comprising 389 COVID-19-positives and 599 COVID-19-negatives. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 54.2 to 56.6% and from 56.3 to 64.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic specificities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 98.2 to 99.8% and from 97.3 to 99.0%, respectively. In the symptomatic group (n = 321), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 14 days after symptom onset. In the asymptomatic group (n = 68), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 21 days after initial RT-PCR detection. In LFIAs, negatively interpreted trace bands accounted for the changes in test performance. Most false-positive results were weak or trace reactions and showed negative results in additional sVNT. For six binding antibody assays, the overall agreement percentages ranged from 91.0 to 97.8%. The median inhibition activity of sVNT was significantly higher in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group (50.0% vs. 29.2%; p < 0.0001). The median times to seropositivity in the symptomatic group were 9.7 days for CLIA-IgG, 9.2 and 9.8 days for two CLIAs-Total (IgM + IgG), 7.7 days for LFIA-IgM, 9.2 days for LFIA-IgG, and 8.8 days for sVNT-IgG, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between the quantitative results of the four binding antibody assays and sVNT with Spearman ρ-values ranging from 0.746 to 0.854. In particular, when using LFIAs, we recommend using more objective interpretable assays or establishing a band interpretation system for each laboratory, accompanied by observer training. We also anticipate that sVNT will play an essential role in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and become the practical routine neutralizing antibody assay.

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

This review provides a broad summary of the performance characteristics of high-throughput severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays with Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization, which are commonly found in central clinical laboratories. In addition, this review discusses the current roles of serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and provides a perspective for the future.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serology Testing - A Laboratory Primer

In 2019, an emerging coronavirus, SARS-COV-2, was first identified. In the months since, SARS-CoV-2 has become a global pandemic of unimaginable scale. In 2021, SARS-CoV-2 continues to be a huge public health burden and a dominating issue in health care. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 has placed a spotlight on laboratory medicine and its key role in infectious disease management. The SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing landscape is vast and consists of dozens of antibody tests that have received EUA. The laboratory is faced with choosing the right test, staying current with the rapidly evolving recommendations, and updating test information for clients and clinicians. This review addresses what we know about the humoral response in SARS-CoV-2 infection and how this knowledge translates into appropriate serology test choice, utility, and interpretation.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 for more than one year - kinetics and persistence of detection are predominantly determined by avidity progression and test design

BACKGROUND

Antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2 requires an understanding of its variation, course, and duration.

METHODS

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated over 5-430 days on 828 samples across COVID-19 severity levels, for total antibody (TAb), IgG, IgA, IgM, neutralizing antibody (NAb), antibody avidity, and for receptor-binding-domain (RBD), spike (S), or nucleoprotein (N). Specificity was determined on 676 pre-pandemic samples.

RESULTS

Sensitivity at 30-60 days post symptom onset (pso) for TAb-S/RBD, TAb-N, IgG-S, IgG-N, IgA-S, IgM-RBD, and NAb was 96.6%, 99.5%, 89.7%, 94.3%, 80.9%, 76.9% and 92.8%, respectively. Follow-up 430 days pso revealed: TAb-S/RBD increased slightly (100.0%); TAb-N decreased slightly (97.1%); IgG-S and IgA-S decreased moderately (81.4%, 65.7%); NAb remained positive (94.3%), slightly decreasing in activity after 300 days; there was correlation with IgG-S (Rs = 0.88) and IgA-S (Rs = 0.71); IgG-N decreased significantly from day 120 (15.7%); IgM-RBD dropped after 30-60 days (22.9%). High antibody avidity developed against S/RBD steadily with time in 94.3% of patients after 430 days. This correlated with persistent antibody detection depending on antibody-binding efficiency of the test design. Severe COVID-19 correlated with earlier and higher antibody response, mild COVID-19 was heterogeneous with a wide range of antibody reactivities. Specificity of the tests was ≥99%, except for IgA (96%).

CONCLUSION

Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays was determined by test design, target antigen, antibody avidity, and COVID-19 severity. Sustained antibody detection was mainly determined by avidity progression for RBD and S. Testing by TAb and for S/RBD provided the highest sensitivity and longest detection duration of 14 months so far.

Laboratory Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia

The emergence and rapid proliferation of Coronavirus Disease-2019, throughout the past year, has put an unprecedented strain on the global schema of health infrastructure and health economy. The time-sensitive agenda of identifying the virus in humans and delivering a vaccine to the public constituted an effort to flatten the statistical curve of viral spread as it grew exponentially. At the forefront of this effort was an exigency of developing rapid and accurate diagnostic strategies. These have emerged in various forms over the past year—each with strengths and weaknesses. To date, they fall into three categories: (1) those isolating and replicating viral RNA in patient samples from the respiratory tract (Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests; NAATs), (2) those detecting the presence of viral proteins (Rapid Antigen Tests; RATs) and serology-based exams identifying antibodies to the virus in whole blood and serum. The latter vary in their detection of immunoglobulins of known prevalence in early-stage and late-stage infection. With this review, we delineate the categories of testing measures developed to date, analyze the efficacy of collecting patient specimens from diverse regions of the respiratory tract, and present the up and coming technologies which have made pathogen identification easier and more accessible to the public.

Evaluation of a Surrogate ELISA- Based Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cPass Neutralization Antibody Detection Assay and Correlation with IgG Commercial Serology Assays

CONTEXT

Emerging evidence shows correlation between the presence of neutralization antibodies (nAbs) and protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Currently available commercial serology assays lack the ability to specifically identify nAbs. An ELISAbased nAb assay (GenScript cPass neutralization antibody assay) has recently received emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance characteristics of this assay and compare and correlate it with the commercial assays that detect SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG.

DESIGN

Specimens from SARS-COV-2 infected patients (n=124), healthy donors obtained pre-pandemic (n=100), and from patients with non-COVID (coronavirus disease 2019) respiratory infections (n=92) were analyzed using this assay. Samples with residual volume were also tested on three commercial serology platforms (Abbott, EUROIMMUN, Siemens). Twenty-eight randomly selected specimens from patients with COVID-19 and 10 healthy controls were subjected to a Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT).

RESULTS

The cPass assay exhibited 96.1% (95% CI, 94.9%-97.3%) sensitivity (at >14 days post- positive PCR), 100% (95% CI, 98.0%-100.0%) specificity and zero cross-reactivity for the presence of non- COVID respiratory infections. When compared to the plaque reduction assay, 97.4% (95% CI, 96.2%-98.5%) qualitative agreement and a positive correlation (R2 =0.76) was observed. Comparison of IgG signals from each of the commercial assays with the nAb results from PRNT/cPass assays displayed >94.7% qualitative agreement and correlations with R2=0.43/0.68 (Abbott), R2=0.57/0.85 (EUROIMMUN) and R2=0.39/0.63 (Siemens), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined data support the use of cPass assay for accurate detection of the nAb response. Positive IgG results from commercial assays associated reasonably with nAbs presence and can serve as a substitute.

Sensitivities and specificities of Anti-SARS CoV2 detection kits - comparison and agreement between fifteen assays

The correct and rapid diagnosis of COVID-19 is vital for proper care and identification of affected individuals. This led to the early availability of many serological assays in the market but with limited validations. This study aimed to assess the validation of the serological assays based on different techniques. We evaluated fifteen assays based on four different immunoassay techniques on 235 patients. The most sensitive kit employing different techniques were as follows: immunochromatography (Zybio SARS CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Assay Kit: 83%), ELISA (Aeskulisa SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG -88.1%), chemiluminescence (Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG - 82.2%) and immunofluorescence (Lifotronic FA160 [Shenzhen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Kit (IgG)] -88.9%). 100% specificity was seen in kits by Uniper (Singuway Biotec COVID-19 IgM/IgG Presumptive Kit), Genrui 2019-nCoV IgM/IgG Test Kit, Wondfu SARS CoV-2 Antibody Test and Aeskulisa SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG while IgG assay on Lifotronic FA160 (Shenzhen SARS-CoV-2 Assay Kit) showed the lowest specificity at 58%. Maximum agreement was observed between Aeskulisa SARS-CoV-2 NP IgG and Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG at 94%. Serological tests are practical alternatives but their reliability requires critical validation. The pandemic pointed a need for investment in health research on both national and international levels.