Performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests: Are they good enough?

SARS-CoV-2 Affects Both Humans and Animals: What Is the Potential Transmission Risk? A Literature Review

In March 2020, the World Health Organization Department declared the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic, as a consequence of its rapid spread on all continents. The COVID-19 pandemic has been not only a health emergency but also a serious general problem as fear of contagion and severe restrictions put economic and social activity on hold in many countries. Considering the close link between human and animal health, COVID-19 might infect wild and companion animals, and spawn dangerous viral mutants that could jump back and pose an ulterior threat to us. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the pandemic, with a particular focus on the clinical manifestations in humans and animals, the different diagnosis methods, the potential transmission risks, and their potential direct impact on the human-animal relationship.

The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing

Sensitive serological testing is essential to estimate the proportion of the population exposed or infected with SARS-CoV-2, to guide booster vaccination and to select patients for treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The performance of serological tests is usually evaluated at 14–21 days post infection. This approach fails to take account of the important effect of time on test performance after infection or exposure has occurred. We performed parallel serological testing using 4 widely used assays (a multiplexed SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein (N), Spike (S) and Receptor Binding Domain assay from Meso Scale Discovery (MSD), the Roche Elecsys-Nucleoprotein (Roche-N) and Spike (Roche-S) assays and the Abbott Nucleoprotein assay (Abbott-N) on serial positive monthly samples collected as part of the Co-STARs study (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04380896) up to 200 days following infection. Our findings demonstrate the considerable effect of time since symptom onset on the diagnostic sensitivity of different assays. Using a time-to-event analysis, we demonstrated that 50% of the Abbott nucleoprotein assays will give a negative result after 175 days (median survival time 95% CI 168–185 days), compared to the better performance over time of the Roche Elecsys nucleoprotein assay (93% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 88–97%). Assays targeting the spike protein showed a lower decline over the follow-up period, both for the MSD spike assay (97% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 95–99%) and the Roche Elecsys spike assay (95% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 93–97%). The best performing quantitative Roche Elecsys Spike assay showed no evidence of waning Spike antibody titers over the 200-day time course of the study. We have shown that compared to other assays evaluated, the Abbott-N assay fails to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as time passes since infection. In contrast the Roche Elecsys Spike Assay and the MSD assay maintained a high sensitivity for the 200-day duration of the study. These limitations of the Abbott assay should be considered when quantifying the immune correlates of protection or the need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapy. The high levels of maintained detectable neutralizing spike antibody titers identified by the quantitative Roche Elecsys assay is encouraging and provides further evidence in support of long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 protection following natural infection.

Age and vitamin D affect the magnitude of the antibody response to the first dose of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine

Background

Most approved vaccines utilise a two-dose strategy. To enable larger groups of patients to receive the first dose, the UK government increased the gap between the two doses from three to twelve weeks. Here we report on the immunogenicity of the first dose, including effect of age and vitamin D status on these levels over an 8 week-period.

Methods

Blood samples were collected from healthcare workers (HCW) receiving their first BNT162b2 vaccine dose between January and February 2021. Antibody (Ab) production was measured, prior to and weekly for 4 weeks post immunization, and a final measurement was performed at 8 weeks. Serum vitamin D concentrations were also measured at baseline.

Findings

Immunization of 97 HCW induced an Ab response that peaked 3•2 weeks post immunization to decrease thereafter. Ab levels remained positive at 8 weeks. IgG peak concentration was negatively associated with age (β=-0•440, p<0.001). Response to immunization was also significantly affected by vitamin D status (p=0•022), on average 29•3% greater peak value in individuals with 25(OH)D>50nmol/L. No other variable showed significant effect.

Interpretation

The first dose of BNT162b2 produced Ab levels that remained positive after 8 weeks. Peak was greater in younger subjects and 25(OH)D>50nmol/L was beneficial. Booster campaigns should take into consideration vitamin D status which is at its highest following a period of sunshine exposure or following oral supplementation (400-1000IU daily).

Funding

Abbott Diagnostics Ltd supplied the kits used to quantify the anti-SARS -CoV-2 Spike IgG and technical support as well as provided financial support for sample collections.

The Influence of Time on the Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Testing

Background: Serological testing is used to quantify SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, guide booster vaccination and select patients for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies therapy. However, our understanding of how serological tests perform as time passes after infection is limited. Methods: Four assays were compared in parallel: 1) the multiplexed spike, nucleoprotein and receptor binding domain Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) assay 2) the Roche Elecsys-Nucleoprotein assay (Roche-N) 3) the Roche Spike assay (Roche-S) and 4) the Abbott Nucleoprotein assay (Abbott-N) on serial positive monthly samples from hospital staff up to 200 days following infection as part of the Co-Stars study. Results: We demonstrate that 50% of the Abbott-N assays give a negative result after 175 days (median survival time 95% CI 168-185 days) while the Roche-N assay (93% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 88-97%) maintained seropositivity. The MSD spike (97% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 95-99%) and the Roche-S assay (95% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 93-97%) also remained seropositive. The best performing quantitative Roche-S assay showed no evidence of waning Spike antibody titres over 200-days. Conclusions: The Abbott-N assay fails to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as time passes since infection. In contrast the Roche and the MSD assays maintained high sensitivity. The limitations of the Abbott assay must be considered in clinical decision making. The long duration of detectable neutralizing spike antibody titres by the quantitative Roche-S assay provides further evidence in support of long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 protection to pre-existing strains of SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection. Trial registration : Co-STARs study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on May 8th, 2020, with trial number NCT04380896 (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04380896).

Review of Clinical Performance of Serology Based Commercial Diagnostic Assays for Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibodies

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, which caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as declared by the World Health Organization, has created havoc worldwide. The highly transmissible infection can be contained only by accurate diagnosis, quarantining, and exercising social distancing. Therefore, quick and massive deployment of SARS-CoV-2 testing plays a crucial role in the identification and isolation of infected patients. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard for COVID-19 detection; however, it needs expertise, facilities, and time. Hence, for the ease of population-wide screening, serology-based diagnostic assays were introduced. These can help determine the prevalence of infection, understand the epidemiology of the disease, and assist in suitable public health interventions while being user-friendly and less time consuming. Although serological testing kits in markets soared, their sensitivity and specificity were questioned in reports from different parts of the world. In this article, we have reviewed 40 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CE-approved clinically evaluated serological kits (8 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] kits, 10 chemiluminescent immunoassay [CLIA] kits, and 22 lateral flow immunoassay [LFIA] kits) for their sensitivity and specificity and discussed the apparent reasons behind their performance. We observed appreciable sensitivity in the kits detecting total antibodies compared to the kits targeting single isotype antibodies. Tests that determined antibodies against nucleocapsid protein were found to be more sensitive and those detecting antibodies against spike protein were found to have greater specificity. This study was conducted to help the decision-making while acquiring antibody kits and concurrently to be mindful of their shortcomings.

The Role of Serology Testing in the Context of Immunization Policies for COVID-19 in Latin American Countries

This review aims to explore the role and value of serology testing in the context of COVID-19 immunization policies in Latin American countries and the barriers and challenges to the adequate use and uptake of this tool. It builds on a review of the academic literature, evidence, and existing policies, and includes a multistage process of discussion and feedback by a group of five experts. Regional and country-level evidence and resources from five focus countries-Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico-were collected and analyzed. This review contains an overview of (1) the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the variants of concern and current testing strategies, (2) the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination, (3) the potential use of serology testing to support immunization initiatives, (4) the current frameworks for the use of serology testing in the region, and (5) the barriers and challenges to implementing serology testing in the context of COVID-19 immunization policies, including a discussion on the potential actions required to address these barriers and facilitate the uptake of this strategy in the region. Stakeholders can use elements of this document to guide timely decision-making, raise awareness, and inspire further studies.

Performance of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quantitative Antibody Assay Including the New Variants of Concern, VOC 202012/V1 (United Kingdom) and VOC 202012/V2 (South Africa), and First Steps towards Global Harmonization of COVID-19 Antibody Methods

In the initial stages of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19 pandemic, a plethora of new serology tests were developed and introduced to the global market. Many were not evaluated rigorously, and there is a significant lack of concordance in results across methods. To enable meaningful clinical decisions to be made, robustly evaluated, quantitative serology methods are needed. These should be harmonized to a primary reference material, allowing for the comparison of trial data and improved clinical decision making. A comprehensive evaluation of the new Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG method was undertaken using CLSI-based protocols. Two different candidate primary reference materials and verification panels were assessed with a goal to move toward harmonization. The Abbott IgG II method performed well across a wide range of parameters with excellent imprecision (<3.5%) and was linear throughout the positive range (tested to 38,365 AU/ml). The sensitivity (based on ≥14-day post-positive reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR] samples) and specificity were 98.3% (90.6% to 100.0%) and 99.5% (97.1% to 100%), respectively. The candidate reference materials showed poor correlation across methods, with mixed responses noted in methods that use the spike protein versus the nucleocapsid proteins as their binding antigen. The Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 measurement appears to be the first linear method potentially capable of monitoring the immune response to natural infection, including from new emerging variants. The candidate reference materials assessed did not generate uniform results across several methods, and further steps are needed to enable the harmonization process.

COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests Show High Cross-Reactivity When Challenged with Pre-Pandemic Malaria, Schistosomiasis and Dengue Samples

COVID-19 Antibody Detecting Rapid Diagnostic Tests (COVID-19 Ab RDTs) are the preferred tool for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The present study challenged COVID-19 Ab RDTs with pre-pandemic samples of patients exposed to tropical pathogens. A retrospective study was performed on archived serum (n = 94) and EDTA whole blood (n = 126) samples obtained during 2010–2018 from 196 travelers with malaria (n = 170), schistosomiasis (n = 25) and dengue (n = 25). COVID-19 Ab RDTs were selected based on regulatory approval status, independent evaluation results and detecting antigens. Among 13 COVID-19 Ab RDT products, overall cross-reactivity was 18.5%; cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue was 20.3%, 18.1% and 7.5%, respectively. Cross-reactivity for current and recent malaria, malaria antibodies, Plasmodium species and parasite densities was similar. Cross-reactivity among the different RDT products ranged from 2.7% to 48.9% (median value 14.5%). IgM represented 67.9% of cross-reactive test lines. Cross-reactivity was not associated with detecting antigens, patient categories or disease (sub)groups, except for schistosomiasis (two products with ≥60% cross-reactivity). The high cross-reactivity for malaria, schistosomiasis and—to a lesser extent—dengue calls for risk mitigation when using COVID-19 Ab RDTs in co-endemic regions.

Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Random Sample of Inhabitants of the Katowice Region, Poland

Lack of knowledge around seroprevalence levels of COVID-19 in Poland was the reason for the implementation of a seroepidemiological study in the Katowice Region (2,100,000 inhabitants). In October-November 2020, a questionnaire examination and measurement of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies were performed in a random sample of the general population (n = 1167). The objectives of the study were to estimate the prevalence of IgG and IgM antibodies and to assess their host-related correlates. The prevalence of IgG seropositivity was 11.4% (95% CI: 9.5-13.2%) and IgM seropositivity was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.5-5.8%). Diagnosis of COVID-19 was found in 4.8% of subjects. A positive IgG test was statistically significantly associated with age (inverse relationship), a person's contact with a COVID-19 patient, quarantine, and two symptoms in the past: fever and loss of smell/taste. Positive IgG tests were less prevalent in subjects who had diagnoses of arterial hypertension, diabetes, or rheumatologic disorders. IgM test positivity was associated with quarantine and loss of smell/taste only with no effect of chronic diseases found. In Poland, in the period October-November 2020, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was larger than earlier estimates obtained in other European countries, probably reflecting the measurements obtained during the "second wave" of the epidemic.