CHARACTERIZING A "N-CoV-2-IgG PS" DIAGNOSTIC KIT TO QUANTIFY SARS-CoV-2 NUCLEOCAPSID PROTEIN-SPECIFIC HUMAN IgG ANTIBODIES

Confirming detected SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies is necessary to reveal immune response in COVID-19 convalescent subjects as well as to conduct population studies by screening for specific antibodies to assess rate of COVID-19 prevalence. With this purpose St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute was the first in Russia to develop the ELISA kit for the quantitative determination of human IgG to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N-CoV-2-IgG PS). Arbitrary units (AU/ml) were used to assess the level of antibodies. The data shown in AU/ml were recalculated later to the international units (BAU/ml) in accordance with established the First WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 human Immunoglobulin. Comparing the data of the N-CoV-2-IgG PS calibration curve with those of the First WHO International Standard for anti-SARS- CoV-2 human Immunoglobulin revealed a complete inter-assay association (r = 0.999, R-2 = 0.997) allowing to find that 1BAU/ml = 5.97 AU/ml. The aim of the study was to characterize the "SARS-CoV-2 protein N Human IgG Quantitative ELISA Kit" (N-CoV-2-IgG PS), compare quantitative and qualitative data of ELISA kits, assess a correlation between the binding antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 N proteins and the neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The data of correlation analysis of the 83 COVID-19 convalescent blood plasma samples a significant relationship between the antibodies quantitative values and titers SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody (r = 0.8436, R-2 = 0.7802) as well as a moderate relationship between antibody concentration and positivity index (r = 0.6648, R-2 = 0.3307), assessed by Chaddock scale. Comparing concentration of N-protein binding antibodies with neutralizing antibody titers level uncovered data consistency obtained by quantitative and virus microneutralization assays (r = 0.7310, R-2 = 0.6527) used in parallel to analyze 80 blood plasma samples obtained from COVID-19 patients and convalescents. AUC under the ROC curve comprised 0.701 (P < 0.0001) evidencing about a satisfactory informative value for "N-CoV-2-IgG PS" compared with microneutralization assay. In addition, the efficacy of the "N-CoV-2-IgG PS" was 95%, while the positive and negative prognostic value was 97% and 87%, respectively. The data obtained confirmed a correlation between N-protein binding antibody level and neutralizing antibody titer. Checking inter-assay agreement evidenced about acceptance for informativeness and efficacy of using "N-CoV-2-IgG PS", thereby confirming an opportunity to apply the Kit to screen for SARS-CoV-2 N protein-specific IgG antibody level and assess seroprevalence in diverse population cohorts.

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.

CHARACTERIZING A “N-CoV-2-IgG PS” DIAGNOSTIC KIT TO QUANTIFY SARS-CoV-2 NUCLEOCAPSID PROTEIN-SPECIFIC HUMAN IgG ANTIBODIES.

Confirming detected SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies is necessary to reveal immune response in COVID-19 convalescent subjects as well as to conduct population studies by screening for specific antibodies to assess rate of COVID-19 prevalence. With this purpose St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute was the first in Russia to develop the ELISA kit for the quantitative determination of human IgG to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N-CoV-2-IgG PS). Arbitrary units (AU/ml) were used to assess the level of antibodies. The data shown in AU/ml were recalculated later to the international units (BAU/ml) in accordance with established the First WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 human Immunoglobulin. Comparing the data of the N-CoV-2-IgG PS calibration curve with those of the First WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 human Immunoglobulin revealed a complete inter-assay association (r = 0.999, R² = 0.997) allowing to find that 1BAU/ml = 5.97 AU/ml. The aim of the study was to characterize the “SARSCoV-2 protein N Human IgG Quantitative ELISA Kit” (N-CoV-2-IgG PS), compare quantitative and qualitative data of ELISA kits, assess a correlation between the binding antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 N proteins and the neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The data of correlation analysis of the 83 COVID-19 convalescent blood plasma samples a significant relationship between the antibodies quantitative values and titers SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody (r = 0.8436, R² = 0.7802) as well as a moderate relationship between antibody concentration and positivity index (r = 0.6648, R² = 0.3307), assessed by Chaddock scale. Comparing concentration of N-protein binding antibodies with neutralizing antibody titers level uncovered data consistency obtained by quantitative and virus microneutralization assays (r = 0.7310, R² = 0.6527) used in parallel to analyze 80 blood plasma samples obtained from COVID-19 patients and convalescents. AUC under the ROC curve comprised 0.701 (P < 0.0001) evidencing about a satisfactory informative value for “N-CoV-2-IgG PS” compared with microneutralization assay. In addition, the efficacy of the “N-CoV-2-IgG PS” was 95%, while the positive and negative prognostic value was 97% and 87%, respectively. The data obtained confirmed a correlation between N-protein binding antibody level and neutralizing antibody titer. Checking inter-assay agreement evidenced about acceptance for informativeness and efficacy of using “N-CoV-2-IgG PS”, thereby confirming an opportunity to apply the Kit to screen for SARS-CoV-2 N protein-specific IgG antibody level and assess seroprevalence in diverse population cohorts. (English) [ FROM AUTHOR] Подтверждение наличия антител, специфичных к коронавирусу SARS-CoV-2, важно для выявления иммунного ответа у лиц, переболевших COVID-19, а также для проведения популяционных исследований путем скрининга антител на предмет определения частоты заражения COVID-19. Санкт-Петербургский НИИ эпидемиологии и микробиологии имени Пастера первым в России разработал иммуноферментный набор реагентов «N-CoV-2-IgG PS» для количественного определения IgG человека к нуклеокапсидному белку SARS-CoV-2. Оценка количества антител осуществлялась в условных единицах (УЕ/мл). Ð’ связи с созданием Первого Международного стандарта для количественного определения иммуноглобулинов к SARSCoV-2, нами был проведен пересчет единиц УЕ/мл в международные единицы BAU/мл. Сопоставление калибровочных проб набора с калибровочной кривой Международного стандарта показало полную связь между ними (r = 0,999, R² = 0,997), при этом коэффициент пересчета определен как 1BAU/мл = 5,97 УЕ/мл. Цель данного сообщения — представить характеристики количественного набора реагентов «N-CoV-2- IgG PS», провести сравнение результатов количественного ИФА с качественным ИФА, оценить корреляционную связь между N-антиген-связывающими антителами с SARS-CoV-2-нейтрализующими антителами. Данные корреляционного анализа показали статистически значимую связь между количественными значениями антител и титрами антител (r = 0,8436, R² = 0,7802) и существенное различие между концентрациями антител и значениями индекса позитивности качественного набора (r = 0,6648, R² = 0,3307) при параллельном исследовании 83 образцов плазмы крови пациентов, переболевших COVID-19. Сравнение значений концентраций связывающих антител с титрами нейтрализующих антител показало статистически значимую сопоставимость результатов количественного теста и теста микронейтрализации вируса (r = 0,7310, R² = 0,6527) при параллельном исследовании 80 образцов плазмы крови реконвалесцентов и больных COVID-19. Значение AUC под ROC кривой составило 0,71 (P < 0,0001), что свидетельствует о прием лемой информативности набора «N-CoV-2-IgG PS» по отношению его к тесту микронейтрализации.Эффективность разработанного набора составила 95%, а положительная и отрицательная прогностические ценности составили 97 и 87%. Результаты исследования подтвердили наличие корреляции N-белок-связывающи … антител с титрами нейтрализующих антител. Проверка межтестовой согласованности свидетельствовала о приемлемости показателей информативности и эффективности набора «N-CoV-2-IgG PS», что подтвердило возможность использования его для скрининга IgG-антител и оценки серопревалентности в разных группах населения. (Russian) [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Russian Journal of Infection & Immunity is the property of National Electronic-Information Consortium and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Identification of contagious SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals by Roche's Rapid Antigen Test.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid antigen tests (RAT) can provide valuable information on the presence or absence SARS-CoV-2 within 15 min without the need of a laboratory. The analytical and diagnostic characteristics of available RATs has led to the question whether they can safely distinguish between infectious and non-infectious patients in an acute care setting. METHODS: Three nasopharyngeal swabs for the analysis by RAT, reverse transcriptase real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), and a cell culture based infection assay were collected from 67 patients that presented to the emergency department of the University Hospital of Graz (Austria). The first swab was used for on-site RAT testing in the emergency department using the Roche SARS-CoV-2 RAT. The second swab was sent to the central laboratory of the hospital for RT-qPCR with two independent methods (Cepheid Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay and Roche Cobas SARS-CoV-2 Test) and repeat RAT testing using the same commercial test. With the third swab a cell culture-based infection assay was performed. RESULTS: The RATs performed from independent samples showed substantial agreement (Cohen's-kappa: 0.73, p<0.001). All patients with a positive RAT had positive RT-qPCR with cycle threshold (ct) values <25. Fifteen out of 55 RAT-negative samples were RT-qPCR positive with ct values between 25 and 40. The inoculation of cell cultures with RT-qPCR negative swabs and RT-qPCR positive swabs with ct values >25 did not induce cytopathic effects that were related to SARS-CoV-2. The infection assays from four RAT-negative patients showed cytopathic effects that were induced by other pathogens. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 RAT from Roche Diagnostics is a valuable tool for managing symptomatic patients. RAT-negative patients may be regarded as non-contagious.

Borderline and weakly positive antibody levels against the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2 exhibit limited agreement with virus neutralization titres.

The presence of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in a large number of people is - besides cellular immunity - important to overcome the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While determination of neutralizing antibodies via virus neutralization tests are laborious, assays to determine the antibody levels serologically are fully automated and widely available. Correlations between these methodologies were recently given by the manufacturers, however performance in samples close to the cut off value have not yet been fully validated. Thus, we analysed 22 borderline and low positive (<100 BAU/ml) samples and 9 high positive (≥ 100 BAU/ml) from infected and/or vaccinated individuals and compared the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (Diasorin), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche), and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens) with results obtained from a virus neutralization test. Based on the cut off values given by Abbott, Diasorin, Roche, and Siemens, the positive serologic results were concordant with the virus neutralization test in 100%, 76%, 88%, and 71%, respectively, while in turn, negative ones were in agreement in 29%, 79%, 93%, and 86%, respectively. In conclusion, weakly positive, serologic results are challenging to correctly predict the presence of neutralizing antibodies. Our study suggests, that different cut off values (for positivity vs. presence of neutralizing antibodies) could improve the test's performance, but determination thereof requires more samples to be analysed.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in Health Care Workers: A Comparison of the Clinical Performance of Three Commercially Available Antibody Assays.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are an excellent indicator of past COVID-19 infection. As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, retained sensitivity over time is an important quality in an antibody assay that is to be used for the purpose of population seroprevalence studies. We compared 5,788 health care worker (HCW) serum samples by using two serological assays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid immunoglobulin G (IgG) and Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid total antibody) and a subset of samples (all Abbott assay positive or grayzone, n = 485) on Wantai SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For 367 samples from HCW with a previous PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we correlated the timing of infection with assay results. Overall, seroprevalence was 4.2% on Abbott and 9.5% on Roche. Of those with previously confirmed infection, 41% (150/367) and 95% (348/367) tested positive on Abbott and Roche, respectively. At 21 weeks (150 days) after confirmed infection, positivity on Abbott started to decline. Roche positivity was retained for the entire study period (33 weeks). Factors associated (P ≤ 0.050) with Abbott seronegativity in those with previous PCR-confirmed infection included sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.30 male ; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.60), symptom severity (OR 0.19 severe symptoms; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.61), ethnicity (OR, 0.28 Asian ethnicity; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.60), and time since PCR diagnosis (OR, 2.06 for infection 6 months previously; 95% CI, 1.01 to 4.30). Wantai detected all previously confirmed infections. In our population, Roche detected antibodies up to at least 7 months after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2. This finding indicates that the Roche total antibody assay is better suited than Abbott IgG assay to population-based studies. Wantai demonstrated high sensitivity, but sample selection was biased. The relationship between serological response and functional immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be delineated. IMPORTANCE As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, retained sensitivity over time is an important quality in an antibody assay that is to be used for the purpose of population seroprevalence studies. There is a relative paucity of published literature in this field to help guide public health specialists when planning seroprevalence studies. In this study, we compared results of 5,788 health care worker blood samples tested by using two assays (Roche and Elecsys, anti-nucleocapsid antibody) and by testing a subset on a third assay (Wantai enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] anti-spike antibody). We found significant differences in the performance of these assays, especially with distance in time from PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection, and we feel these results may significantly impact the choice of assay for others conducting similar studies.

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.

Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of 10 serological assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Antibody detection is essential to establish exposure, infection, and immunity to SARS-CoV-2, as well as to perform epidemiological studies. The worldwide urge for new diagnostic tools to control the pandemic has led to a quick incorporation in clinical practice of the recently developed serological assays. However, as only few comparative studies have been published, there is a lack of data about the diagnostic accuracy of currently available assays. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy to detect Ig G, Ig M+A, and/or IgA anti SARS-CoV-2 of 10 different assays: lateral flow card immunoassays, 4 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and 3 chemiluminescent particle immunoassays (CMIA). Using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 as gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were determined. Each assay was tested in 2 groups, namely, positive control, formed by 50 sera from 50 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia with positive RT-PCR; and negative control, formed by 50 sera from 50 patients with respiratory infection non-COVID-19. Sensitivity range of the 10 assays evaluated for patients with positive COVID-19 RT-PCR was 40-77% (65-81% considering IgG plus IgM). Specificity ranged 83-100%. VPP and VPN were respectively 81-100% and 61.6-81%. Among the lateral flow immunoassays, the highest sensitivity and specificity results were found in Wondfo® SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test. ELISA IgG and IgA from EUROIMMUN® were the most sensitive ELISA. However, poor results were obtained for isolated detection of IgG. We found similar sensitivity for IgG with SARS-CoV-2 for Architect by Abbott® and ELISA by Vircell®. Results obtained varied widely among the assays evaluated. Due to a better specificity, overall diagnostic accuracy of the assays evaluated was higher in case of positive result. On the other side, lack of antibody detection should be taken with care because of the low sensitivity described. Highest diagnostic accuracy was obtained with ELISA and CMIAs, but they last much longer.