Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody quantitative titer reporting using the World Health Organization International Standard Units by four commercial assays.

The accurate measurement of serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is needed to correlate responses with effective protective immunity. The World Health Organization (WHO) has created an international standard to allow harmonization of immune response assessment to an arbitrary unit across different commercial assays; however, the accuracy of reporting of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titers in international standard units (BAU or IU/mL) from commercial assays is not well studied. Here, we report the performance comparison of four quantitative commercial assays testing for SARS-CoV-2 spike immunoglobins using the WHO's international standard. Sera, EDTA-plasma and heparinized plasma collected from individuals who are vaccine naïve or received BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) were tested using Abbott Architect AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II, DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S and GenScript cPass SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization assays. The sensitivities ranged from 90% to 100%, and specificities from 88% to 100%. These four assays had excellent agreement (0.79-0.93) and correlation (0.87-0.97); however, Passing-Bablok regression analysis indicated that data generated by these assays were not comparable. Our data suggests that natural SARS-CoV-2 infection elicited a greater antibody response compared to vaccines, evident by a significantly higher neutralizing antibody titer in unvaccinated individuals who seroconverted.

Clinical associations of SARS-CoV-2 viral load using the first WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

SARS-CoV-2 viral load declines from the time of symptom onset; in some studies viral load is higher or persists longer in more severe COVID-19 infection, and viral load correlates with culture positivity. This was a retrospective cohort study of inpatients and outpatients during the first wave of COVID-19 infection in Western Australia, March to May 2020, of the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 viral load (using the First WHO International Standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA) from symptom onset, by clinical subgroups determined from the public health database and hospital records, using regression analysis. We studied 320 samples from 201 COVID-19 cases: 181 mild, seven severe, 11 critical, and four cases who died (two were also critical cases). At symptom onset the mean viral load was 4.34 log10 IU/mL (3.92-4.77 log10 IU/mL 95% CI, cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay ORF1a Ct 28.9 cycles). The mean viral load change was -0.09 log10 IU/mL/day (-0.12 to -0.06 95% CI). R2 was 0.08 and residual standard deviation 2.68 log10 IU/mL. Viral load at symptom onset was higher for those reporting fever compared to those not reporting fever. Viral load kinetics were not different for gender, age, shortness of breath, or those requiring oxygen. Mean viral load at usual release from isolation at 14 days was 2.5 log10 IU/mL or day 20 was 1.8 log10 IU/mL. Variability in respiratory sample SARS-CoV-2 viral load kinetics suggests viral loads will only have a role supporting clinical decision making, and an uncertain role for prognostication.

Analysis of Serological Biomarkers of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Convalescent Samples From Severe, Moderate and Mild COVID-19 Cases.

Precision monitoring of antibody responses during the COVID-19 pandemic is increasingly important during large scale vaccine rollout and rise in prevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC). Equally important is defining Correlates of Protection (CoP) for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Data from epidemiological studies and vaccine trials identified virus neutralising antibodies (Nab) and SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific (notably RBD and S) binding antibodies as candidate CoP. In this study, we used the World Health Organisation (WHO) international standard to benchmark neutralising antibody responses and a large panel of binding antibody assays to compare convalescent sera obtained from: a) COVID-19 patients; b) SARS-CoV-2 seropositive healthcare workers (HCW) and c) seronegative HCW. The ultimate aim of this study is to identify biomarkers of humoral immunity that could be used to differentiate severe from mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Some of these biomarkers could be used to define CoP in further serological studies using samples from vaccination breakthrough and/or re-infection cases. Whenever suitable, the antibody levels of the samples studied were expressed in International Units (IU) for virus neutralisation assays or in Binding Antibody Units (BAU) for ELISA tests. In this work we used commercial and non-commercial antibody binding assays; a lateral flow test for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG/IgM; a high throughput multiplexed particle flow cytometry assay for SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S), Nucleocapsid (N) and Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) proteins); a multiplex antigen semi-automated immuno-blotting assay measuring IgM, IgA and IgG; a pseudotyped microneutralisation test (pMN) and an electroporation-dependent neutralisation assay (EDNA). Our results indicate that overall, severe COVID-19 patients showed statistically significantly higher levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralising antibodies (average 1029 IU/ml) than those observed in seropositive HCW with mild or asymptomatic infections (379 IU/ml) and that clinical severity scoring, based on WHO guidelines was tightly correlated with neutralisation and RBD/S antibodies. In addition, there was a positive correlation between severity, N-antibody assays and intracellular virus neutralisation.

A Highly Sensitive and Specific SARS-CoV-2 Spike- and Nucleoprotein-Based Fluorescent Multiplex Immunoassay (FMIA) to Measure IgG, IgA, and IgM Class Antibodies.

Validation and standardization of accurate serological assays are crucial for the surveillance of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and population immunity. We describe the analytical and clinical performance of an in-house fluorescent multiplex immunoassay (FMIA) for simultaneous quantification of antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleoprotein and spike glycoprotein. Furthermore, we calibrated IgG-FMIA against World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard and compared FMIA results to an in-house enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a microneutralization test (MNT). We also compared the MNT results of two laboratories. IgG-FMIA displayed 100% specificity and sensitivity for samples collected 13 to 150 days post-onset of symptoms (DPO). For IgA- and IgM-FMIA, 100% specificity and sensitivity were obtained for a shorter time window (13 to 36 and 13 to 28 DPO for IgA- and IgM-FMIA, respectively). FMIA and EIA results displayed moderate to strong correlation, but FMIA was overall more specific and sensitive. IgG-FMIA identified 100% of samples with neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Anti-spike IgG concentrations correlated strongly (ρ = 0.77 to 0.84, P < 2.2 × 10-16) with NAb titers, and the two laboratories' NAb titers displayed a very strong correlation (ρ = 0.95, P < 2.2 × 10-16). Our results indicate good correlation and concordance of antibody concentrations measured with different types of in-house SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Calibration against the WHO international standard did not, however, improve the comparability of FMIA and EIA results. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 serological assays with excellent clinical performance are essential for reliable estimation of the persistence of immunity after infection or vaccination. In this paper we present a thoroughly validated SARS-CoV-2 serological assay with excellent clinical performance and good comparability to neutralizing antibody titers. Neutralization tests are still considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 serological assays, but our assay can identify samples with neutralizing antibodies with 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity without the need for laborious and slow biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) facility-requiring analyses.

The WHO International Standard for COVID-19 serological tests: towards harmonization of anti-spike assays.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays are relevant in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, providing valuable data on the immunization status of the population. However, current serology tests are highly variable, due to their different characteristics and to the lack of reference materials. The aim of the World Health Organization (WHO) first International Standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin is to harmonize humoral immune response assessment after natural infection or vaccination, and recommend reporting the results for binding activity in Binding Antibody Units (BAU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed six commercial quantitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-protein assays in a head-to-head comparison, using the manufacturers' conversion factors for the WHO IS to obtain BAU/mL values. RESULTS: Our data showed good alignment up to 1000 BAU/mL, then began to disperse, exhibiting some discrepancies. Moreover, correlations among methods varied with Cohen's Kappa ranging from 0.580 to 1.00, with the lowest agreement values for kits using different target antigens or different antibody isotypes, making it clear that the laboratory report should include this information. Values expressed as BAU/ml showed a reduced between-assays variability compared to AU/ml (median coefficients of variation 0.38 and 0.68, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: On the basis of these data at present anti-SARS CoV-2 serological assays' results are not interchangeable, and, more importantly, individual immune monitoring should be performed with the same method.