Estimating the COVID-19 infection fatality ratio accounting for seroreversion using statistical modelling.

Background: The infection fatality ratio (IFR) is a key statistic for estimating the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been continuously debated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The age-specific IFR can be quantified using antibody surveys to estimate total infections, but requires consideration of delay-distributions from time from infection to seroconversion, time to death, and time to seroreversion (i.e. antibody waning) alongside serologic test sensitivity and specificity. Previous IFR estimates have not fully propagated uncertainty or accounted for these potential biases, particularly seroreversion. Methods: We built a Bayesian statistical model that incorporates these factors and applied this model to simulated data and 10 serologic studies from different countries. Results: We demonstrate that seroreversion becomes a crucial factor as time accrues but is less important during first-wave, short-term dynamics. We additionally show that disaggregating surveys by regions with higher versus lower disease burden can inform serologic test specificity estimates. The overall IFR in each setting was estimated at 0.49-2.53%. Conclusion: We developed a robust statistical framework to account for full uncertainties in the parameters determining IFR. We provide code for others to apply these methods to further datasets and future epidemics.

Longitudinal variation in SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and emergence of viral variants: a serological analysis.

BACKGROUND: Serological assays are being used to monitor antibody responses in individuals who had SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who received a COVID-19 vaccine. We aimed to determine whether such assays can predict neutralising antibody titres as antibody levels wane and viral variants emerge. METHODS: We measured antibody levels in serum samples from a cohort of 112 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection using ten high-throughput serological tests and functional neutralisation assays. Serum samples were taken at baseline and at up to four subsequent visits. We assessed the effects of time and spike protein sequence variation on the performance and predictive value of the various assays. We did correlation analyses for individual timepoints using non-parametric Spearman correlation, and differences between timepoints were determined by use of a two-tailed Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. FINDINGS: Neutralising antibody titres decreased over the first few months post-infection but stabilised thereafter, at about 30% of the level observed shortly after infection. Serological assays commonly used to measure antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 displayed a range of sensitivities that declined to varying extents over time. Quantitative measurements generated by serological assays based on the spike protein were better at predicting neutralising antibody titres than those based on nucleocapsid, but performance was variable, and manufacturer positivity thresholds were not able to predict the presence or absence of detectable neutralising activity. Although we observed some deterioration in correlation between serological measurements and functional neutralisation activity, some assays maintained an ability to predict neutralising titres, even against variants of concern. INTERPRETATION: The ability of high-throughput serological assays to predict neutralising antibody titres is likely to be crucial for evaluation of immunity at the population scale. These data can facilitate the selection of the most suitable assays as surrogates of functional neutralising activity and suggest that such measurements might be useful in clinical practice. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and National Health Service Research Scotland BioResource.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody point of care devices in the laboratory and clinical setting.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests have been marketed to diagnose previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and as a test of immune status. There is a lack of evidence on the performance and clinical utility of these tests. We aimed to carry out an evaluation of 14 point of care (POC) SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Serum from participants with previous RT-PCR (real-time polymerase chain reaction) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pre-pandemic serum controls were used to determine specificity and sensitivity of each POC device. Changes in sensitivity with increasing time from infection were determined on a cohort of study participants. Corresponding neutralising antibody status was measured to establish whether the detection of antibodies by the POC device correlated with immune status. Paired capillary and serum samples were collected to ascertain whether POC devices performed comparably on capillary samples. Sensitivity and specificity varied between the POC devices and in general did not meet the manufacturers' reported performance characteristics, which signifies the importance of independent evaluation of these tests. The sensitivity peaked at ≥20 days following onset of symptoms, however sensitivity of 3 of the POC devices evaluated at extended time points showed that sensitivity declined with time. This was particularly marked at >140 days post infection. This is relevant if the tests are to be used for sero-prevalence studies. Neutralising antibody data showed that positive antibody results on POC devices did not necessarily confer high neutralising antibody titres, and that these POC devices cannot be used to determine immune status to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Comparison of paired serum and capillary results showed that there was a decline in sensitivity using capillary blood. This has implications in the utility of the tests as they are designed to be used on capillary blood by the general population.

Absence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Neutralizing Activity in Prepandemic Sera From Individuals With Recent Seasonal Coronavirus Infection.

Cross-reactive immune responses elicited by seasonal coronaviruses might affect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) susceptibility and disease outcomes. We measured neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 in prepandemic sera from patients with prior polymerase chain reaction scan-confirmed seasonal coronavirus infection. Although neutralizing activity against seasonal coronaviruses was detected in nearly all sera, cross-reactive neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 was undetectable.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays for use in epidemiological surveillance in Scotland.

Background: Sero-surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to monitoring levels of population exposure and informing public health responses, but may be influenced by variability in performance between available assays. Methods: Five commercial immunoassays and a neutralising activity assay were used to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in routine primary care and paediatric samples collected during the first wave of the pandemic in NHS Lothian, Scotland as part of ongoing surveillance efforts. For each assay, sensitivity and specificity was calculated relative to consensus results (majority of immunoassays positive = overall positive) and neutralising activity. Quantitative correlation was performed between serological and neutralising titres. Results: Seroprevalence ranged from 3.4-7.3 % in primary care patients and 3-5.9 % in paediatric patients according to different immunoassays. Neutralising activity was detectable in 2.8 % and 1.3 % respectively. Relative assay performance changed depending on comparison to immunoassay consensus versus neutralising activity and qualititative versus quantitative agreement. Cross-reactivity with endemic seasonal coronaviruses was confirmed by neutralising assay in false positives for one immunoassay. Presence of false positives for another assay was found specifically in paediatric but not adult samples. Conclusions: Five serological assays show variable accuracy when applied to the general population, impacting seroprevalence estimates. Assay performance may also vary in detection of protective neutralising antibody levels. These aspects should be considered in assay selection and interpretation in epidemiological studies.

Diagnostic performance of the combined nasal and throat swab in patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential to guide treatment and limit spread of the virus. The combined nasal and throat swab is used widely, but its diagnostic performance is uncertain. METHODS: In a prospective, multi-centre, cohort study conducted in secondary and tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, we evaluated the combined nasal and throat swab with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in consecutive patients admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. Diagnostic performance of the index and serial tests was evaluated for a primary outcome of confirmed or probable COVID-19, and a secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing. The diagnosis was adjudicated by a panel, who recorded clinical, laboratory and radiological features blinded to the test results. RESULTS: We enrolled 1368 consecutive patients (median age 68 [interquartile range, IQR 53-80] years, 47% women) who underwent a total of 3822 tests (median 2 [IQR 1-3] tests per patient). The primary outcome occurred in 36% (496/1368), of whom 65% (323/496) and 35% (173/496) had confirmed and probable COVID-19, respectively. The index test was positive in 255/496 (51%) patients with the primary outcome, giving a sensitivity and specificity of 51.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48.8 to 54.1%) and 99.5% (95% CI 99.0 to 99.8%). Sensitivity increased in those undergoing 2, 3 or 4 tests to 60.1% (95% CI 56.7 to 63.4%), 68.3% (95% CI 64.0 to 72.3%) and 77.6% (95% CI 72.7 to 81.9%), respectively. The sensitivity of the index test was 78.9% (95% CI 74.4 to 83.2%) for the secondary outcome of confirmed COVID-19 on serial testing. CONCLUSIONS: In patients admitted to hospital, a single combined nasal and throat swab with RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 has excellent specificity, but limited diagnostic sensitivity for COVID-19. Diagnostic performance is significantly improved by repeated testing.

Longitudinal Serological Analysis and Neutralizing Antibody Levels in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Patients.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the longitudinal trajectory of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies is crucial for diagnosis of prior infection and predicting future immunity. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent patients, with neutralizing antibody assays and SARS-CoV-2 serological assay platforms using SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) or nucleocapsid (N) antigens. RESULTS: Sensitivities of serological assays in diagnosing prior SARS-CoV-2 infection changed with time. One widely used commercial platform that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 71% at 81-100 days after diagnosis. The trajectories of median binding antibody titers measured over approximately 3-4 months were not dependent on the use of SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins as antigen. The median neutralization titer decreased by approximately 45% per month. Each serological assay gave quantitative antibody titers that were correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization titers, but S-based serological assay measurements better predicted neutralization potency. Correlation between S-binding and neutralization titers deteriorated with time, and decreases in neutralization titers were not predicted by changes in S-binding antibody titers. CONCLUSIONS: Different SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are more or less well suited for surveillance versus prediction of serum neutralization potency. Extended follow-up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serological correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

Longitudinal analysis of clinical serology assay performance and neutralising antibody levels in COVID19 convalescents.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with time Design Retrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort . Setting NHS outpatient clinics Participants Individuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalization Main outcome measures The sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed. Results The three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.