Comparison of five Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays across three doses of BNT162b2 reveals insufficient standardization of SARS-CoV-2 serology.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the comparability of WHO standard referenced commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests over three doses of BNT162b2 vaccine and up to 14 months. METHODS: 114 subjects (without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or immunosuppressive medication) vaccinated with three doses of BNT162b2 were included in this study. Antibody levels were quantified 3 weeks after the first dose, 5-6 weeks and 7 months after the second dose, and 4-5 weeks and 4 months after the third dose using the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, the GenScript cPASS sVNT and the TECO sVNT assays. RESULTS: For each time point analyzed, systematic differences are evident between the results in BAU/mL of the three antibody binding assays. The assay ratios change in a time-dependent manner even beyond administering the third dose (Roche measuring 9 and 3 times higher than Abbott and DiaSorin, respectively). However, changes decrease in magnitude with increasing time intervals from the first dose. IgG-based assays show better agreement across them than with Roche (overall correlations: Abbott x DiaSorin: ρ = 0.94 vs. Abbott x Roche: ρ=0.89, p < 0.0001; DiaSorin x Roche: ρ = 0.87, p < 0.0001), but results are not interchangeable. The sVNTs suggest an underestimation of antibody levels by Roche and slight overestimation by both IgG assays after the first vaccine dose. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of SARS-CoV-2 antibody binding assays still needs to be improved to allow reliable use of variable assay systems for longitudinal analyses.

Obesity is associated with a higher Torque Teno viral load compared to leanness.

Introduction: Obesity affects a rising proportion of the population and is an important risk factor for unfavorable outcomes in viral disease including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2- associated diseases. Torque Teno virus (TTV) is a ubiquitous and apathogenic virus which reflects the immune function of its host. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between obesity and TTV load - an indirect marker of compromised viral immune response. Methods: TTV was quantified by TTV R-GENE® PCR in a total of 89 participants of which 30 were lean (BMI <25 kg/m2) and 59 were obese (BMI >30 kg/m2). For 38 subjects, follow-up was available after bariatric surgery. Results: TTV load was higher in individuals with obesity (median 2.39, IQR: 1.69-3.33 vs. 1.88, IQR 1.08-2.43 log10 copies/mL; p = 0.027). Multivariable linear modeling revealed an independent association between TTV load and obesity. TTV was positively correlated with waist-to-hip ratio and inversely with 25OH vitamin D levels. Interleukin 6 and fasting insulin resistance were confounders of the association between TTV and obesity, while age was an effect modifier. TTV load increased by 87% (95% CI 2-243%) in the year following bariatric surgery. Discussion: A higher TTV load in obese individuals may reflect compromised immune function and thus might serve for risk stratification of unfavorable outcomes during infectious disease, including coronavirus disease 2019, in this population. Our data warrant further analysis of TTV-based risk assessment in obese individuals in the context of infectious disease-associated outcomes.

Increasing test specificity without impairing sensitivity: lessons learned from SARS-CoV-2 serology.

BACKGROUND: Serological tests are widely used in various medical disciplines for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Unfortunately, the sensitivity and specificity of test systems are often poor, leaving room for false-positive and false-negative results. However, conventional methods were used to increase specificity and decrease sensitivity and vice versa. Using SARS-CoV-2 serology as an example, we propose here a novel testing strategy: the 'sensitivity improved two-test' or 'SIT²' algorithm. METHODS: SIT² involves confirmatory retesting of samples with results falling in a predefined retesting zone of an initial screening test, with adjusted cut-offs to increase sensitivity. We verified and compared the performance of SIT² to single tests and orthogonal testing (OTA) in an Austrian cohort (1117 negative, 64 post-COVID-positive samples) and validated the algorithm in an independent British cohort (976 negatives and 536 positives). RESULTS: The specificity of SIT² was superior to single tests and non-inferior to OTA. The sensitivity was maintained or even improved using SIT² when compared with single tests or OTA. SIT² allowed correct identification of infected individuals even when a live virus neutralisation assay could not detect antibodies. Compared with single testing or OTA, SIT² significantly reduced total test errors to 0.46% (0.24-0.65) or 1.60% (0.94-2.38) at both 5% or 20% seroprevalence. CONCLUSION: For SARS-CoV-2 serology, SIT² proved to be the best diagnostic choice at both 5% and 20% seroprevalence in all tested scenarios. It is an easy to apply algorithm and can potentially be helpful for the serology of other infectious diseases.

Reduced Sensitivity of Commercial Spike-Specific Antibody Assays after Primary Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is characterized by substantial changes in the antigenic structure of the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, antibodies induced by primary Omicron infection lack neutralizing activity against earlier variants. In this study, we analyzed whether these antigenic changes impact the sensitivity of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Sera from 37 unvaccinated, convalescent individuals after putative primary Omicron infection were tested with a panel of 20 commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. As controls, we used samples from 43 individuals after primary infection with the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral wild-type strain. In addition, variant-specific live-virus neutralization assays were used as a reference for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in the samples. Notably, in Omicron convalescents, there was a statistically significant reduction in the sensitivity of all antibody assays containing S or its receptor-binding-domain (RBD) as antigens. Furthermore, antibody levels quantified by these assays displayed a weaker correlation with Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers than with those against the wild type. In contrast, the sensitivity of nucleocapsid-protein-specific immunoassays was similar in wild-type and Omicron-infected subjects. In summary, the antigenic changes in the Omicron S lead to reduced immunoreactivity in the current commercial S- and RBD-specific antibody assays, impairing their diagnostic performance. IMPORTANCE This study demonstrates that the antigenic changes of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant affect test results from commercial Spike- and RBD-specific antibody assays, significantly diminishing their sensitivities and diagnostic abilities to assess neutralizing antibodies.

Anti-Spike Protein Assays to Determine SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Levels: a Head-to-Head Comparison of Five Quantitative Assays.

Reliable quantification of the antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is highly relevant, e.g., for identifying possible vaccine failure and estimating the time of protection. Therefore, we evaluated five different anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays regarding the quantification of anti-spike (S) antibodies. Sera from 69 SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals 21 ± 1 days after vaccination with a single dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) were tested using the following quantitative assays: Roche S total antibody, DiaSorin trimeric spike IgG, DiaSorin S1/S2 IgG, Abbott II IgG, and Serion/Virion IgG. Results were further compared to the percent inhibition calculated from a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Individual values were distributed over several orders of magnitude for all assays. Although the assays were in good overall agreement (ρ = 0.80 to 0.94), Passing-Bablok regression revealed systematic constant and proportional differences, which could not be eliminated by converting the results to binding antibody units (BAU) per milliliter, as suggested by the manufacturers. Seven (10%) individuals had negative sVNT results (i.e., <30% inhibition). These samples were identified by most assays and yielded significantly lower binding antibody levels. Although all assays showed good correlation, they were not interchangeable, even when converted to BAU per milliliter using the WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin. This highlights the need for further standardization of SARS-CoV-2 serology. IMPORTANCE Reliable quantification of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 is highly relevant, e.g., for identifying possible vaccine failure and estimating the time of protection. We compared the performance of five CE marked tests that quantify antibodies against the viral spike protein. Our findings suggest that, although all assays showed good correlation, their results were not interchangeable, even when converted to BAU per milliliter using the WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin. This highlights the need for further standardization of SARS-CoV-2 serology.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Three Fully Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays with a Focus on Specificity.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous new serological test systems for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies rapidly have become available. However, the clinical performance of many of these is still insufficiently described. Therefore, we compared 3 commercial CE-marked, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays side by side. METHODS: We included a total of 1154 specimens from pre-COVID-19 times and 65 samples from COVID-19 patients (≥14 days after symptom onset) to evaluate the test performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin. RESULTS: All 3 assays presented with high specificities: 99.2% (98.6-99.7) for Abbott, 99.7% (99.2-100.0) for Roche, and 98.3% (97.3-98.9) for DiaSorin. In contrast to the manufacturers' specifications, sensitivities only ranged from 83.1% to 89.2%. Although the 3 methods were in good agreement (Cohen's Kappa 0.71-0.87), McNemar tests revealed significant differences between results obtained from Roche and DiaSorin. However, at low seroprevalences, the minor differences in specificity resulted in profound discrepancies of positive predictive values at 1% seroprevalence: 52.3% (36.2-67.9), 77.6% (52.8-91.5), and 32.6% (23.6-43.1) for Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin, respectively. CONCLUSION: We found diagnostically relevant differences in specificities for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin that have a significant impact on the positive predictive values of these tests.