Convalescent plasma therapy for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: Assessment of methods available for antibody detection and their correlation with neutralising antibody levels (preprint)

Introduction. The lack of approved specific therapeutic agents to treat COVID-19 associated with SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has led to the rapid implementation and/or randomised controlled trials of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) in many countries including the UK. Effective CPT is likely to require high titres of neutralising antibody levels in convalescent donations. Understanding the relationship between functional neutralising antibodies and antibody levels to specific SARS-CoV-2 proteins in scalable assays will be crucial for the success of large-scale collection and use of convalescent plasma. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with reactivity in a range of ELISA assays targeting the spike (S) protein, the main target for human immune response. Methods. Blood samples were collected from 52 individuals with a previous laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at least 28 days after symptom resolution. These were assayed for SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies by microneutralisation and pseudotype assays, and for antibodies by four different ELISAs. ROC analysis was used to further identify sensitivity and specificity of selected assays to identify samples containing high neutralising antibody levels suitable for clinical use of convalescent plasma. Results. All samples contained SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, whereas neutralising antibody titres of greater than 1:20 were detected in 43 samples (83% of those tested) and >1:100 in 22 samples (42%). The best correlations were observed with EUROimmun IgG ELISA S/CO reactivity (Spearman Rho correlation co-efficient 0.88; p<0.001). Based on ROC analysis, EUROimmun would detect 60% of samples with titres of >1:100 with 100% specificity using a reactivity index of 9.1 (13/22). Discussion. Robust associations between virus neutralising antibody titres and reactivity in several ELISA-based antibody tests demonstrate their possible utility for scaled-up production of convalescent plasma containing potentially therapeutic levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies.

Evaluation of antibody testing for SARS-Cov-2 using ELISA and lateral flow immunoassays (preprint)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. MethodsWe tested plasma for COVID (SARS-CoV-2) IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different LFIA devices. We used a panel of plasma samples from individuals who have had confirmed COVID infection based on a PCR result (n=40), and pre-pandemic negative control samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142). ResultsELISA detected IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with a confirmed history of COVID infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs. 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 COVID-positive individuals tested [≥]10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%). IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. ConclusionsCurrently available commercial LFIA devices do not perform sufficiently well for individual patient applications. However, ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following first symptoms.