GPS-estimated foot traffic data and venue selection for COVID-19 serosurveillance studies (preprint)

Tracking the dynamics and spread of COVID-19 is critical to mounting an effective response to the pandemic. In the absence of randomized representative serological surveys, many SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance studies have relied on convenience sampling to estimate cumulative incidence. One common approach is to recruit at frequently visited community locations ("venue-based" sampling), but the sources of bias and uncertainty associated with this strategy are still poorly understood. Here, we used data from a venue-based community serosurveillance study, GPS-estimated foot traffic data, and data on confirmed COVID-19 cases to report an estimate of cumulative incidence in Somerville, Massachusetts, and a methodological strategy to quantify and reduce uncertainty in serology-based cumulative incidence estimates obtained via convenience sampling. The mismatch between the geographic distribution of participants' home locations (the "participant catchment distribution") and the geographic distribution of infections is an important determinant of uncertainty in venue-based and other convenience sampling strategies. We found that uncertainty in cumulative incidence estimates can vary by a factor of two depending how well the participant catchment distribution matches the known or expected geographic distribution of prior infections. GPS-estimated business foot traffic data provides an important proxy measure for the participant catchment area and can be used to select venue locations that minimize uncertainty in cumulative incidence.

Remote fingerstick blood collection for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing (preprint)

The rapid worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection has propelled the rapid development of serological tests that can detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These have been used for studying the prevalence and spread of infection in different populations, helping establish a diagnosis of COVID-19, and will likely be used to confirm humoral immunity after infection or vaccination. However, nearly all lab-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serological assays require a serum sample from venous blood draw, limiting their applications and scalability. Here, we present a method that enables large scale SARS-CoV-2 serological studies by combining self or office collection of fingerprick blood with an FDA-approved dried blood spot collection device (Neoteryx Mitra(R)) with a high-throughput electrochemiluminescence-based SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay (Roche Elecsys(R)) that is EUA approved for use on serum samples and widely used by clinical laboratories around the world. We found that the Roche Elecsys(R) assay has a high dynamic range that allows for accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples diluted 1:20 as well as contrived dried blood extracts. Extracts of dried blood from Neoteryx Mitra(R) devices acquired in a community seroprevalence study showed near identical sensitivity and specificity in detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as compared to neat sera using predefined thresholds for each specimen type. Overall, this study affirms the use of Neoteryx Mitra(R) dried blood collection device with the Roche Elecsys(R) SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay for remote or at-home testing as well as large-scale community seroprevalence studies.

COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies predict disease severity and survival (preprint)

COVID-19 exhibits variable symptom severity ranging from asymptomatic to life-threatening, yet the relationship between severity and the humoral immune response is poorly understood. We examined antibody responses in 113 COVID-19 patients and found that severe cases resulting in intubation or death exhibited increased inflammatory markers, lymphopenia, and high anti-RBD antibody levels. While anti-RBD IgG levels generally correlated with neutralization titer, quantitation of neutralization potency revealed that high potency was a predictor of survival. In addition to neutralization of wild-type SARS-CoV-2, patient sera were also able to neutralize the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 mutant D614G, suggesting protection from reinfection by this strain. However, SARS-CoV-2 sera was unable to cross-neutralize a highly-homologous pre-emergent bat coronavirus, WIV1-CoV, that has not yet crossed the species barrier. These results highlight the importance of neutralizing humoral immunity on disease progression and the need to develop broadly protective interventions to prevent future coronavirus pandemics.

Dynamics and significance of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection (preprint)

BACKGROUND Characterizing the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and developing accurate serologic assays are needed for diagnostic purposes and estimating population-level seroprevalence. METHODS We measured the kinetics of early antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of 259 symptomatic North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (up to 75 days after symptom onset) compared to antibody levels in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic. RESULTS Between 14-28 days from onset of symptoms, IgG, IgA, or IgM antibody responses to RBD were all accurate in identifying recently infected individuals, with 100% specificity and a sensitivity of 97%, 91%, and 81% respectively. Although the estimated median time to becoming seropositive was similar across isotypes, IgA and IgM antibodies against RBD were short-lived with most individuals estimated to become seronegative again by 51 and 47 days after symptom onset, respectively. IgG antibodies against RBD lasted longer and persisted through 75 days post-symptoms. IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 RBD were highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies targeting the S protein. No cross-reactivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD-targeted antibodies was observed with several known circulating coronaviruses, HKU1, OC 229 E, OC43, and NL63. CONCLUSIONS Among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases, RBD-targeted antibodies can be indicative of previous and recent infection. IgG antibodies are correlated with neutralizing antibodies and are possibly a correlate of protective immunity.

Clinical Sensitivity and Interpretation of PCR and Serological COVID-19 Diagnostics for Patients Presenting to the Hospital (preprint)

Introduction: The diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. Methods: A single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR-positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results: Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70-71% from days 9-11, and 30% at day 21. In contrast, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after day 7, >80% after day 12, and 100% by day 21. Conclusion: PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time-dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays (preprint)

Background Serological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. Method We conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. Results Among specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. Conclusion Our evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies.