Performance evaluation of the Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific Quantitative IgG test by comparison with the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test and clinical assessment.

BACKGROUND: Despite the worldwide campaigns of COVID-19 vaccinations, the pandemic is still a major medical and social problem. The Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific quantitative IgG (VITROS S-IgG) assay has been developed to assess neutralizing antibody (NT antibody) against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibodies. However, it has not been evaluated in Japan, where the total cases and death toll are lower than the rest of the world. METHODS: The clinical performance of VITROS S-IgG was evaluated by comparing with the NT antibody levels measured by the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test (sVNT). A total of 332 serum samples from 188 individuals were used. Of these, 219 samples were from 75 COVID-19 patients: 96 samples from 20 severe/critical cases (Group S), and 123 samples from 55 mild/moderate cases (Group M). The remaining 113 samples were from 113 healthcare workers who had received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. RESULTS: VITROS S-IgG showed good correlation with the cPass sVNT assay (Spearman rho = 0.91). Both VITROS S-IgG and cPass sVNT showed significantly higher plateau levels of antibodies in Group S compared to Group M. Regarding the humoral immune responses after BNT162b2 vaccination, individuals who were negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-specific antibodies had statistically lower titers of both S-IgG and sVNT compared to individuals with a history of COVID-19 and individuals who were positive for N-specific antibodies without history of COVID-19. In individuals who were positive for N-specific antibodies, S-IgG and sVNT titers were similar to individuals with a history of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Although the automated quantitative immunoassay VITROS S-IgG showed a reasonable correlation with sVNT antibodies, there is some discrepancy between Vitros S-IgG and cPass sVNT in milder cases. Thus, VITROS S-IgG can be a useful diagnostic tool in assessing the immune responses to vaccination and herd immunity. However, careful analysis is necessary to interpret the results.

Performance evaluation of the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays by comparison with neutralizing antibodies and clinical assessment.

Quantitative measurement of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies is highly expected to evaluate immune status, vaccine response, and antiviral therapy. The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Elecsys® anti-S) was developed to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 S proteins. We sought to investigate whether Elecsys® anti-S can be used to predict neutralizing activities in patients' serums using an authentic virus neutralization assay. One hundred forty-six serum samples were obtained from 59 patients with COVID-19 at multiple time points. Of the 59 patients, 44 cases were included in Group M (mild 23, moderate 21) and produced 84 samples (mild 35, moderate 49), while 15 cases were included in Group S (severe 11, critical 4) and produced 62 samples (severe 43, critical 19). The neutralization assay detected 73% positive cases, and Elecsys® anti-S and Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Elecsys® anti-N) showed 72% and 66% positive cases, respectively. A linear correlation between the Elecsys® anti-S assay and the neutralization assay were highly correlated (r = 0.7253, r2 = 0.5261) than a linear correlation between the Elecsys® anti-N and neutralization assay (r = 0.5824, r2 = 0.3392). The levels of Elecsys® anti-S antibody and neutralizing activities were significantly higher in Group S than in Group M after 6 weeks from onset of symptoms (p < 0.05). Conversely, the levels of Elecsys® anti-N were comparable in both groups. Three immunosuppressed patients, including cancer patients, showed low levels of anti-S and anti-N antibodies and neutralizing activities throughout the measurement period, indicating the need for careful follow-up. Our data indicate that Elecsys® anti-S can predict the neutralization antibodies in COVID-19.

Th1 cytokine endotype discriminates and predicts severe complications in COVID-19

Treatment of severe and critical cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a top priority in public health. Previously, we reported distinct Th1 cytokines related to the pathophysiology of severe COVID-19 condition. In the present study, we investigated the association of Th1 and Th2 cytokine/chemokine endotypes with cell-mediated immunity via multiplex immunophenotyping, single-cell RNA-Seq analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and analysis of the clinical features of COVID-19 patients. Based on serum cytokine and systemic inflammatory markers, COVID-19 cases were classified into four clusters of increasing (I-IV) severity. Two prominent clusters were of interest and could be used as prognostic reference for a targeted treatment of severe COVID-19 cases. Cluster III reflected severe/critical pathology and was characterized by decreased in CCL17 levels and increase in IL-6, C-reactive protein CXCL9, IL-18, and IL-10 levels. The second cluster (Cluster II) showed mild to moderate pathology and was characterized by predominated CXCL9 and IL-18 levels, levels of IL-6 and CRP were relatively low. Cluster II patients received anti-inflammatory treatment in early-stage, which may have led prevent disease prognosis which is accompanied to IL-6 and CRP induction. In Cluster III, a decrease in the proportion of effector T cells with signs of T cell exhaustion was observed. This study highlights the mechanisms of endotype clustering based on specific inflammatory markers in related the clinical outcome of COVID-19.

Activation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody is slower than elevation of spike-specific IgG, IgM, and nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies.

COVID-19 antibody testing has been developed to investigate humoral immune response in SARS-CoV-2 infection. To assess the serological dynamics and neutralizing potency following SARS-CoV-2 infection, we investigated the neutralizing (NT) antibody, anti-spike, and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies responses using a total of 168 samples obtained from 68 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Antibodies were measured using an authentic virus neutralization assay, the high-throughput laboratory measurements of the Abbott Alinity quantitative anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (S-IgG), semiquantitative anti-spike IgM (S-IgM), and anti-nucleocapsid IgG (N-IgG) assays. The quantitative measurement of S-IgG antibodies was well correlated with the neutralizing activity detected by the neutralization assay (r = 0.8943, p < 0.0001). However, the kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 NT antibody in severe cases were slower than that of anti-S and anti-N specific antibodies. These findings indicate a limitation of using the S-IgG antibody titer, detected by the chemiluminescent immunoassay, as a direct quantitative marker of neutralizing activity capacity. Antibody testing should be carefully interpreted when utilized as a marker for serological responses to facilitate diagnostic, therapeutic, and prophylactic interventions.