SARS-CoV-2 IgG Spike antibody levels and avidity in natural infection or following vaccination with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines.

Certain aspects of the immunogenicity and effectiveness of the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines (mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2) developed in response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic are still uncharacterized. Serum or plasma samples from healthy donor recipients of either vaccine (BNT162b2 n = 53, mRNA-1273 n = 49; age 23-67), and individuals naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 (n = 106; age 18-82) were collected 0-2 months post-infection or 1- and 4 months after second dose of vaccination. Anti-Spike antibody levels and avidity were measured via an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Overall, vaccination induced higher circulating anti-Spike protein immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody levels and avidity compared to infection at similar time intervals. Both vaccines produced similar anti-Spike IgG concentrations at 1 month, while mRNA-1273 demonstrated significantly higher circulating antibody concentrations after 4 months. mRNA-1273 induced significantly higher avidity at month 1 compared to BNT162b2 across all age groups. However, the 23-34 age group was the only group to maintain statistical significance by 4 months. Male BNT162b2 recipients were approaching statistically significant lower anti-Spike IgG avidity compared to females by month 4. These findings demonstrate enhanced anti-Spike IgG levels and avidity following vaccination compared to natural infection. In addition, the mRNA-1273 vaccine induced higher antibody levels by 4 months compared to BNT162b2.

Assay Harmonization Study To Measure Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines: a Serology Methods Study.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented the scientific community with an immediate need for accurate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology assays, resulting in an expansion of assay development, some without following a rigorous quality control and validation, and with a wide range of performance characteristics. Vast amounts of data have been gathered on SARS-CoV-2 antibody response; however, performance and ability to compare the results have been challenging. This study seeks to analyze the reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of a set of widely used commercial, in-house, and neutralization serology assays, as well as provide evidence for the feasibility of using the World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) as a harmonization tool. This study also seeks to demonstrate that binding immunoassays may serve as a practical alternative for the serological study of large sample sets in lieu of expensive, complex, and less reproducible neutralization assays. In this study, commercial assays demonstrated the highest specificity, while in-house assays excelled in antibody sensitivity. As expected, neutralization assays demonstrated high levels of variability but overall good correlations with binding immunoassays, suggesting that binding may be reasonably accurate as well as practical for the study of SARS-CoV-2 serology. All three assay types performed well after WHO IS standardization. The results of this study demonstrate there are high performing serology assays available to the scientific community to rigorously dissect antibody responses to infection and vaccination. IMPORTANCE Previous studies have shown significant variability in SARS-CoV-2 antibody serology assays, highlighting the need for evaluation and comparison of these assays using the same set of samples covering a wide range of antibody responses induced by infection or vaccination. This study demonstrated that there are high performing assays that can be used reliably to evaluate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in the context of infection and vaccination. This study also demonstrated the feasibility of harmonizing these assays against the International Standard and provided evidence that the binding immunoassays may have high enough correlation with the neutralization assays to serve as a practical proxy. These results represent an important step in standardizing and harmonizing the many different serological assays used to evaluate COVID-19 immune responses in the population.

Development, Validation, and Utilization of a Luminex-Based SARS-CoV-2 Multiplex Serology Assay.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is important for seroprevalence studies and for evaluating vaccine immune responses. We developed and validated a Luminex bead-based multiplex serology assay for measuring IgG levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against full-length spike (S), nucleocapsid (N), and receptor-binding domains (RBDs) of wild-type, RBD N501Y mutant, RBD E484K mutant, RBD triple mutant SARS-CoV-2 proteins, Sars-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, and common human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, OC43, 229E, HKU1, and NL63. Assay cutoff values, sensitivity, and specificity were determined using samples from 160 negative controls and 60 PCR-confirmed, SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. The assay demonstrated sensitivities of 98.3%, 95%, and 100% and specificities of 100%, 99.4%, and 98.8% for anti-(S), -N, and -RBD, respectively. Results are expressed as IgG antibody concentrations in BAU/mL, using the WHO international standard (NIBSC code 20/136) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. When the multiplex assay was performed and compared with singleplex assays, the IgG antibody measurement geometric mean ratios were between 0.895 and 1.122, and no evidence of interference was observed between antigens. Lower and upper IgG concentration limits, based on accuracy (between 80% and 120%), precision (percent relative standard deviation, ≤25%), and sample dilutional linearity (between 75% and 125%), were used to establish the assay range. Precision was established by evaluating 24 individual human serum samples obtained from vaccinated and SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. The assay provided reproducible, consistent results with typical coefficients of variation of ≤20% for all assays, irrespective of the run, day, or analyst. Results indicate the assay has high sensitivity and specificity and thus is appropriate for use in measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in infected and vaccinated individuals. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted in the development and validation of multiple serology tests with variable performance. While there are multiple SARS-CoV-2 serology tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, the focus is usually either on only one antigen at a time or multiple proteins from only one SARS-CoV-2 variant. These tests usually do not evaluate antibodies against viral proteins from different SARS-CoV-2 variants or from other coronaviruses. Here, we evaluated a multiplex serology test based on Luminex technology, where antibodies against multiple domains of SARS-CoV-2 wild type, SARS-CoV-2 mutants, and common coronavirus antibodies are detected simultaneously in a single assay. This Luminex-based multiplex serology assay can enhance our understanding of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Selection, Characterization, Calibration, and Distribution of the U.S. Serology Standard for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted in a demand for highly specific and sensitive serological testing to evaluate seroprevalence and antiviral immune responses to infection and vaccines. Hence, there was an urgent need for a serology standard to harmonize results across different natural history and vaccine studies. The Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) generated a U.S. serology standard for SARS-CoV-2 serology assays and subsequently calibrated it to the WHO international standard (National Institute for Biological Standards and Control [NIBSC] code 20/136) (WHO IS). The development included a collaborative study to evaluate the suitability of the U.S. serology standard as a calibrator for SARS-CoV-2 serology assays. The eight laboratories participating in the study tested a total of 17 assays, which included commercial and in-house-derived binding antibody assays, as well as neutralization assays. Notably, the use of the U.S. serology standard to normalize results led to a reduction in the inter-assay coefficient of variation (CV) for IgM levels (pre-normalization range, 370.6% to 1,026.7%, and post-normalization range, 52.8% to 242.3%) and a reduction in the inter-assay CV for IgG levels (pre-normalization range, 3,416.3% to 6,160.8%, and post-normalization range, 41.6% to 134.6%). The following results were assigned to the U.S. serology standard following calibration against the WHO IS: 246 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL for Spike IgM, 764 BAU/mL for Spike IgG, 1,037 BAU/mL for Nucleocapsid IgM, 681 BAU/mL for Nucleocapsid IgG assays, and 813 neutralizing international units (IU)/mL for neutralization assays. The U.S. serology standard has been made publicly available as a resource to the scientific community around the globe to help harmonize results between laboratories.

Concordance of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Results during a Period of Low Prevalence.

Accurate, highly specific immunoassays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to evaluate seroprevalence. This study investigated the concordance of results across four immunoassays targeting different antigens for sera collected at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the United States. Specimens from All of Us participants contributed between January and March 2020 were tested using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG (immunoglobulin G) assay (Abbott) and the EuroImmun SARS-CoV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EI). Participants with discordant results, participants with concordant positive results, and a subset of concordant negative results by Abbott and EI were also tested using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (IgG) test (Roche) and the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Vitros anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test (Ortho). The agreement and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for paired assay combinations. SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were quantified for specimens with at least two positive results across four immunoassays. Among the 24,079 participants, the percent agreement for the Abbott and EI assays was 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 98.7%, 99%). Of the 490 participants who were also tested by Ortho and Roche, the probability-weighted percentage of agreement (95% confidence interval) between Ortho and Roche was 98.4% (97.9%, 98.9%), that between EI and Ortho was 98.5% (92.9%, 99.9%), that between Abbott and Roche was 98.9% (90.3%, 100.0%), that between EI and Roche was 98.9% (98.6%, 100.0%), and that between Abbott and Ortho was 98.4% (91.2%, 100.0%). Among the 32 participants who were positive by at least 2 immunoassays, 21 had quantifiable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations by research assays. The results across immunoassays revealed concordance during a period of low prevalence. However, the frequency of false positivity during a period of low prevalence supports the use of two sequentially performed tests for unvaccinated individuals who are seropositive by the first test. IMPORTANCE What is the agreement of commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) assays during a time of low coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence and no vaccine availability? Serological tests produced concordant results in a time of low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and no vaccine availability, driven largely by the proportion of samples that were negative by two immunoassays. The CDC recommends two sequential tests for positivity for future pandemic preparedness. In a subset analysis, quantified antinucleocapsid and antispike SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies do not suggest the need to specify the antigen targets of the sequential assays in the CDC's recommendation because false positivity varied as much between assays targeting the same antigen as it did between assays targeting different antigens.

Comparing one dose of HPV vaccine in girls aged 9-14 years in Tanzania (DoRIS) with one dose of HPV vaccine in historical cohorts: an immunobridging analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are given as a two-dose schedule in children aged 9-14 years, or as three doses in older individuals. We compared antibody responses after one dose of HPV vaccine in the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study (DoRIS), a randomised trial of different HPV vaccine schedules in Tanzania, to those from two observational HPV vaccine trials that found high efficacy of one dose up to 11 years against HPV16 and HPV18 (Costa Rica Vaccine Trial [CVT] and Institutional Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] India trial). METHODS: In this immunobridging analysis of an open-label randomised controlled trial, girls were recruited from 54 government schools in Mwanza, Tanzania, into the DoRIS trial. Girls were eligible if they were aged 9-14 years, healthy, and HIV negative. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), using permutated block sizes of 12, 18, and 24, to one, two, or three doses of the 2-valent vaccine (Cervarix, GSK Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium) or the 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Lyon, France). For this immunobridging analysis, the primary objective was to compare geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) at 24 months after one dose in the per-protocol population compared with in historical cohorts: the one-dose 2-valent vaccine group in DoRIS was compared with recipients of the 2-valent vaccine Cervarix from CVT and the one-dose 9-valent vaccine group in DoRIS was compared with recipients of the 4-valent vaccine Gardasil (Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) from the IARC India trial. Samples were tested together with virus-like particle ELISA for HPV16 and HPV18 IgG antibodies. Non-inferiority of GMC ratios (DoRIS trial vs historical cohort) was predefined as when the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than 0·50. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02834637. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2017, and Jan 6, 2018, we screened 1002 girls for eligibility, of whom 930 were enrolled into DoRIS and 155 each were assigned to one dose, two doses, or three doses of 2-valent vaccine, or one dose, two doses, or three doses of 9-valent vaccine. 154 (99%) participants in the one-dose 2-valent vaccine group (median age 10 years [IQR 9-12]) and 152 (98%) in the one-dose 9-valent vaccine group (median age 10 years [IQR 9-12]) were vaccinated and attended the 24 month visit, and so were included in the analysis. 115 one-dose recipients from the CVT (median age 21 years [19-23]) and 139 one-dose recipients from the IARC India trial (median age 14 years [13-16]) were included in the analysis. At 24 months after vaccination, GMCs for HPV16 IgG antibodies were 22·9 international units (IU) per mL (95% CI 19·9-26·4; n=148) for the DoRIS 2-valent vaccine group versus 17·7 IU/mL (13·9-22·5; n=97) for the CVT (GMC ratio 1·30 [95% CI 1·00-1·68]) and 13·7 IU/mL (11·9-15·8; n=145) for the DoRIS 9-valent vaccine group versus 6·7 IU/mL (5·5-8·2; n=131) for the IARC India trial (GMC ratio 2·05 [1·61-2·61]). GMCs for HPV18 IgG antibodies were 9·9 IU/mL (95% CI 8·5-11·5: n=141) for the DoRIS 2-valent vaccine group versus 8·0 IU/mL (6·4-10·0; n=97) for the CVT trial (GMC ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·95-1·60]) and 5·7 IU/mL (4·9-6·8; n=136) for the DoRIS 9-valent vaccine group versus 2·2 IU/mL (1·9-2·7; n=129) for the IARC India trial (GMC ratio 2·12 [1·59-2·83]). Non-inferiority of antibody GMCs was met for each vaccine for both HPV16 and HPV18. INTERPRETATION: One dose of HPV vaccine in young girls might provide sufficient protection against persistent HPV infection. A one-dose schedule would reduce costs, simplify vaccine delivery, and expand access to the vaccine. FUNDING: UK Department for International Development/UK Medical Research Council/Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trials Scheme, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION: For the KiSwahili translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) for COVID-19: Depth and Breadth of Serology Assays and Plans for Assay Harmonization.

In October 2020, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) was established to study the immune response to COVID-19, and "to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies" (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/covid-19/coronavirus-research-initiatives/serological-sciences-network). SeroNet is comprised of 25 participating research institutions partnering with the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and the SeroNet Coordinating Center. Since its inception, SeroNet has supported collaborative development and sharing of COVID-19 serological assay procedures and has set forth plans for assay harmonization. To facilitate collaboration and procedure sharing, a detailed survey was sent to collate comprehensive assay details and performance metrics on COVID-19 serological assays within SeroNet. In addition, FNLCR established a protocol to calibrate SeroNet serological assays to reference standards, such as the U.S. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology standard reference material and first WHO international standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (20/136), to facilitate harmonization of assay reporting units and cross-comparison of study data. SeroNet institutions reported development of a total of 27 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods, 13 multiplex assays, and 9 neutralization assays and use of 12 different commercial serological methods. FNLCR developed a standardized protocol for SeroNet institutions to calibrate these diverse serological assays to reference standards. In conclusion, SeroNet institutions have established a diverse array of COVID-19 serological assays to study the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. Calibration of SeroNet serological assays to harmonize results reporting will facilitate future pooled data analyses and study cross-comparisons. IMPORTANCE SeroNet institutions have developed or implemented 61 diverse COVID-19 serological assays and are collaboratively working to harmonize these assays using reference materials to establish standardized reporting units. This will facilitate clinical interpretation of serology results and cross-comparison of research data.

Antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in All of Us Research Program Participants, 2 January to 18 March 2020.

BACKGROUND: With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January-March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. METHODS: All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%-100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%-95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%-99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%-99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%-95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%-100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.

A Trans-Governmental Collaboration to Independently Evaluate SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 created a crucial need for serology assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which led to many serology assays entering the market. A trans-government collaboration was created in April 2020 to independently evaluate the performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays and help inform U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory decisions. To assess assay performance, three evaluation panels with similar antibody titer distributions were assembled. Each panel consisted of 110 samples with positive (n = 30) serum samples with a wide range of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers and negative (n = 80) plasma and/or serum samples that were collected before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each sample was characterized for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the spike protein using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Samples were selected for the panel when there was agreement on seropositivity by laboratories at National Cancer Institute's Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (NCI-FNLCR) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The sensitivity and specificity of each assay were assessed to determine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) suitability. As of January 8, 2021, results from 91 evaluations were made publicly available (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html). Sensitivity ranged from 27% to 100% for IgG (n = 81), from 10% to 100% for IgM (n = 74), and from 73% to 100% for total or pan-immunoglobulins (n = 5). The combined specificity ranged from 58% to 100% (n = 91). Approximately one-third (n = 27) of the assays evaluated are now authorized by FDA for emergency use. This collaboration established a framework for assay performance evaluation that could be used for future outbreaks and could serve as a model for other technologies. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a crucial need for accurate serology assays to evaluate seroprevalence and antiviral immune responses. The initial flood of serology assays entering the market with inadequate performance emphasized the need for independent evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays using performance evaluation panels to determine suitability for use under EUA. Through a government-wide collaborative network, 91 commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assay evaluations were performed. Three evaluation panels with similar overall antibody titer distributions were assembled to evaluate performance. Nearly one-third of the assays evaluated met acceptable performance recommendations, and two assays had EUAs revoked and were removed from the U.S. market based on inadequate performance. Data for all serology assays evaluated are available at the FDA and CDC websites (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html).