Antibody (Serology) Tests for COVID-19: a Case Study

Inferring COVID-19 testing and vaccination behavior from New Jersey testing data

Characterizing the relationship between disease testing behaviors and infectious disease dynamics is of great importance for public health. Tests for both current and past infection can influence disease-related behaviors at the individual level, while population-level knowledge of an epidemic's course may feed back to affect one's likelihood of taking a test. The COVID-19 pandemic has generated testing data on an unprecedented scale for tests detecting both current infection (PCR, antigen) and past infection (serology); this opens the way to characterizing the complex relationship between testing behavior and infection dynamics. Leveraging a rich database of individualized COVID-19 testing histories in New Jersey, we analyze the behavioral relationships between PCR and serology tests, infection, and vaccination. We quantify interactions between individuals' test-taking tendencies and their past testing and infection histories, finding that PCR tests were disproportionately taken by people currently infected, and serology tests were disproportionately taken by people with past infection or vaccination. The effects of previous positive test results on testing behavior are less consistent, as individuals with past PCR positives were more likely to take subsequent PCR and serology tests at some periods of the epidemic time course and less likely at others. Lastly, we fit a model to the titer values collected from serology tests to infer vaccination trends, finding a marked decrease in vaccination rates among individuals who had previously received a positive PCR test. These results exemplify the utility of individualized testing histories in uncovering hidden behavioral variables affecting testing and vaccination.

Nanotechnologies for the Diagnosis and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and Its Variants

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), responsible for the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has caused well over 750 million infections and 6.8 million deaths. Rapid diagnosis and isolation of infected patients are the primary aims of the concerned authorities to minimize the casualties. The endeavor to mitigate the pandemic has been impeded by the emergence of newly identified genomic variants of SARS-CoV-2. Some of these variants are considered as serious threats because of their higher transmissibility and potential immune evasion, leading to reduced vaccine efficiency. Nanotechnology can play an important role in advancing both diagnosis and therapy of COVID-19. In this review, nanotechnology-based diagnostic and therapeutic strategies against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants are introduced. The biological features and functions of the virus, the mechanism of infection, and currently used approaches for diagnosis, vaccination, and therapy are discussed. Then, nanomaterial-based nucleic acid- and antigen-targeting diagnostic methods and viral activity suppression approaches that have a strong potential to advance both diagnostics and therapeutics toward control and containment of the COVID-19 pandemic are focused upon.

A novel precision-serology assay for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on linear B-cell epitopes of Spike protein

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the need for serology diagnostics with improved accuracy. While conventional serology based on recognition of entire proteins or subunits thereof has made significant contribution to the antibody assessment space, it often suffers from sub-optimal specificity. Epitope-based, high-precision, serology assays hold potential to capture the high specificity and diversity of the immune system, hence circumventing the cross-reactivity with closely related microbial antigens.

Methods

We herein report mapping of linear IgG and IgA antibody epitopes of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein in samples from SARS-CoV-2 exposed individuals along with certified SARS-CoV-2 verification plasma samples using peptide arrays.

Results

We identified 21 distinct linear epitopes. Importantly, we showed that pre-pandemic serum samples contain IgG antibodies reacting to the majority of protein S epitopes, most likely as a result of prior infection with seasonal coronaviruses. Only 4 of the identified SARS-CoV-2 protein S linear epitopes were specific for SARS-CoV-2 infection. These epitopes are located at positions 278-298 and 550-586, just proximal and distal to the RBD, as well as at position 1134-1156 in the HR2 subdomain and at 1248-1271 in the C-terminal subdomain of protein S. To substantiate the applicability of our findings, we tested three of the high-accuracy protein S epitopes in a Luminex assay, using a certified validation plasma sample set from SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. The Luminex results were well aligned with the peptide array results, and correlated very well with in-house and commercial immune assays for RBD, S1 and S1/S2 domains of protein S.

Conclusion

We present a comprehensive mapping of linear B-cell epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 protein S, that identifies peptides suitable for a precision serology assay devoid of cross-reactivity. These results have implications for development of highly specific serology test for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and other members of the coronaviridae family, as well as for rapid development of serology tests for future emerging pandemic threats.

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.

A comparison of conventional and advanced electroanalytical methods to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus: A concise review

Respiratory viruses are a serious threat to human wellbeing that can cause pandemic disease. As a result, it is critical to identify virus in a timely, sensitive, and precise manner. The present novel coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) disease outbreak has increased these concerns. The research of developing various methods for COVID-19 virus identification is one of the most rapidly growing research areas. This review article compares and addresses recent improvements in conventional and advanced electroanalytical approaches for detecting COVID-19 virus. The popular conventional methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), loop mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), serology test, and computed tomography (CT) scan with artificial intelligence require specialized equipment, hours of processing, and specially trained staff. Many researchers, on the other hand, focused on the invention and expansion of electrochemical and/or bio sensors to detect SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that they could show a significant role in COVID-19 disease control. We attempted to meticulously summarize recent advancements, compare conventional and electroanalytical approaches, and ultimately discuss future prospective in the field. We hope that this review will be helpful to researchers who are interested in this interdisciplinary field and desire to develop more innovative virus detection methods.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody quantitative titer reporting using the World Health Organization International Standard Units by four commercial assays

The accurate measurement of serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is needed to correlate responses with effective protective immunity. The World Health Organization (WHO) has created an international standard to allow harmonization of immune response assessment to an arbitrary unit across different commercial assays; however, the accuracy of reporting of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titers in international standard units (BAU or IU/mL) from commercial assays is not well studied. Here, we report the performance comparison of four quantitative commercial assays testing for SARS-CoV-2 spike immunoglobins using the WHO's international standard. Sera, EDTA-plasma and heparinized plasma collected from individuals who are vaccine naïve or received BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) were tested using Abbott Architect AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II, DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S and GenScript cPass SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization assays. The sensitivities ranged from 90% to 100%, and specificities from 88% to 100%. These four assays had excellent agreement (0.79–0.93) and correlation (0.87–0.97); however, Passing-Bablok regression analysis indicated that data generated by these assays were not comparable. Our data suggests that natural SARS-CoV-2 infection elicited a greater antibody response compared to vaccines, evident by a significantly higher neutralizing antibody titer in unvaccinated individuals who seroconverted.

Quantification of a COVID-19 Antibody Assay Using a Lateral Flow Test and a Cell Phone

Although several biomedical assays have been developed to screen for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, very few can be completed without drawing blood. We developed a rapid lateral flow screening tool that used saliva samples and yielded rapid results that could be quantified using a cell phone. This assay provided the sensitive detection of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 within 10 min. We started by synthesising, modifying, and characterising gold nanoparticles. Using these particles as a coloured label, we developed a lateral flow strip made of nitrocellulose, glass fibre, and cellulose material. We quantified our visual results using pictures acquired with a cell phone and calculated a limit of detection of 4 ng/mL of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

Acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine based on the health belief model: a multicenter national survey among medical care workers in China

Vaccine uptake rate is crucial for herd immunity. Medical care workers (MCWs) can serve as ambassadors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. This study aimed to assess MCWs’ willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and to explore the factors affecting COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. A multicenter study among medical care workers was conducted in seven selected hospitals from seven geographical territories of China, and data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine hesitancy, and health beliefs on COVID-19 vaccination among participants. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were performed to explore the correlations between individual factors and the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine. Among the 2681 subjects, 82.5% of the participants were willing to accept the COVID-19 vaccination. Multivariate regression analyses revealed that individuals with more cues to action about the vaccination, higher level of confidence about the vaccine, and higher level of trust in the recommendations of COVID-19 vaccine from the government and the healthcare system were more likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine. In contrast, subjects with higher level of perceived barriers and complacency were less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. Overall, MCWs in China showed a high willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The governmental recommendation is an important driver and lead of vaccination. Relevant institutions could increase MCWs’ willingness to COVID-19 vaccines by increasing MCWs’ perception of confidence about COVID-19 vaccines and cues to action through various strategies and channels. Meanwhile, it can also provide evidence in similar circumstances in the future to develop vaccine promotion strategies.

Equipment-free, salt-mediated immobilization of nucleic acids for nucleic acid lateral flow assays

As the world has been facing several deadly virus crises, including Zika virus disease, Ebola virus disease, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), lateral flow assays (LFAs), which require minimal equipment for point-of-care of viral infectious diseases, are garnering much attention. Accordingly, there is an increasing demand to reduce the time and cost required for manufacturing LFAs. The current study introduces an equipment-free method of salt-mediated immobilization of nucleic acids (SAIoNs) for LFAs. Compared to general DNA immobilization methods such as streptavidin-biotin, UV-irradiation, and heat treatment, our method does not require special equipment (e.g., centrifuge, UV-crosslinker, heating device); therefore, it can be applied in a resource-limited environment with reduced production costs. The immobilization process was streamlined and completed within 30 min. Our method improved the color intensity signal approximately 14 times compared to the method without using SAIoNs and exhibited reproducibility with the long-term storage stability. The proposed method can be used to detect practical targets (e.g., SARS-CoV-2) and facilitates highly sensitive and selective detection of target nucleic acids with multiplexing capability and without any cross-reactivity. This novel immobilization strategy provides a basis for easily and inexpensively developing nucleic acid LFAs combined with various types of nucleic acid amplification.