Case-Control Study of Individuals with Discrepant Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein SARS-CoV-2 IgG Results.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection vary widely in performance. However, there are limited prospectively-collected data on assay performance, and minimal clinical information to guide interpretation of discrepant results. METHODS: Over a 2-week period, 1080 consecutive plasma samples submitted for clinical SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing were tested in parallel for anti-nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N, Abbott) and anti-spike IgG (anti-S1, EUROIMMUN). Chart review was conducted for samples testing positive or borderline on either assay, and for an age/sex-matched cohort of samples negative by both assays. CDC surveillance case definitions were used to determine clinical sensitivity/specificity and conduct receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. RESULTS: There were 52 samples positive by both methods, 2 positive for anti-N only, 34 positive for anti-S1 only, and 27 borderline for anti-S1. Of the 34 individuals positive for anti-S1 alone, 8 (24%) had confirmed COVID-19. No anti-S1 borderline cases were positive for anti-N or had confirmed/probable COVID-19. The anti-N assay was less sensitive (84.2% [95% CI 72.1-92.5%] vs 94.7% [95% CI 85.4-98.9%]) but more specific (99.2% [95% CI 95.5-100%] vs 86.9% [95% CI 79.6-92.3%]) than anti-S1. Abbott anti-N sensitivity could be improved to 96.5% with minimal effect on specificity if the index threshold was lowered from 1.4 to 0.6. CONCLUSION: Real-world concordance between different serologic assays may be lower than previously described in retrospective studies. These findings have implications for the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG results, especially with the advent of spike antigen-targeted vaccination, as a subset of patients with true infection are anti-N negative and anti-S1 positive.

Defining the features and duration of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with disease severity and outcome.

SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, particularly those preventing viral spike receptor binding domain (RBD) interaction with host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, can neutralize the virus. It is, however, unknown which features of the serological response may affect clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients. We analyzed 983 longitudinal plasma samples from 79 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and 175 SARS-CoV-2-infected outpatients and asymptomatic individuals. Within this cohort, 25 patients died of their illness. Higher ratios of IgG antibodies targeting S1 or RBD domains of spike compared to nucleocapsid antigen were seen in outpatients who had mild illness versus severely ill patients. Plasma antibody increases correlated with decreases in viral RNAemia, but antibody responses in acute illness were insufficient to predict inpatient outcomes. Pseudovirus neutralization assays and a scalable ELISA measuring antibodies blocking RBD-ACE2 interaction were well correlated with patient IgG titers to RBD. Outpatient and asymptomatic individuals' SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including IgG, progressively decreased during observation up to five months post-infection.

Evaluation of Abbott anti-SARS-CoV-2 CMIA IgG and Euroimmun ELISA IgG/IgA assays in a clinical lab.

BACKGROUND: We report our findings of test performance especially specificity of a fully automated Abbott Architect anti-SARS-CoV-2 CMIA IgG and Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgA/IgG in human plasma. METHODS: We used positive cohort of 97 samples from Covid-19 patients or healthcare workers, collected at late time points from symptom onsets. We also included another cohort of 215 samples as negative controls, 78 of which had positive serology test results of other infectious diseases or autoimmunity. Assay specificity was assessed by using a total of 847 anonymized samples which were collected before the Covid-19 pandemic from local patient populations seeking clinical care for rheumatoid diseases, thyroid cancer, and therapeutic drug monitoring. RESULTS: Abbott IgG, Euroimmun IgG/IgA had high precision, demonstrated by both intra- and inter-day CVs of <2%. There was no Abbott or Euroimmun IgG assay cross reactivity in the 78 samples with positive serology of non-SARS-CoV-2 infectious diseases and positive autoimmune antibodies. The Abbott IgG has specificity of 99.6%, while Euroimmun IgG and IgA were as high as 91.5% and 71.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation confirmed high specificity of the Abbott IgG assay, while it was lower for Euroimmun IgG. Euroimmun IgA has suboptimal specificity which may limit its clinical use. Assay sensitivity was high for both Abbott and Euroimmun IgG assays.