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.

Preanalytical stability of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies.

OBJECTIVES: Anti-nucleocapsid (NC) antibodies are produced in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, they are well suited for the detection of a previous infection. Especially in the case of seroprevalence studies or during the evaluation of a novel in-vitro diagnostic test, samples have been stored at <-70 °C (short- and long-term) or 2-10 °C (short-term) before analysis. This study aimed to assess the impact of different storage conditions relevant to routine biobanking on anti-NC antibodies. METHODS: The preanalytical impact of short-term storage (84 [58-98] days) on <-70 °C and for 14 days at 2-10 °C was evaluated using samples from 111 donors of the MedUni Vienna Biobank. Long-term effects (443 [409-468] days) were assessed using 208 samples from Biobank Graz and 49 samples from Biobank Vienna. Anti-Nucleocapsid antibodies were measured employing electrochemiluminescence assays (Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2). RESULTS: After short-term storage, the observed changes did not exceed the extent that could be explained by analytical variability. In contrast, results after long-term storage were approximately 20% higher and seemed to increase with storage duration. This effect was independent of the biobank from which the samples were obtained. Accordingly, the sensitivity increased from 92.6 to 95.3% (p=0.008). However, comparisons with data from Anti-Spike protein assays, where these deviations were not apparent, suggest that this deviation could also be explained by the analytical variability of the qualitative Anti-NC assay. CONCLUSIONS: Results from anti-NC antibodies are stable during short-term storage at <-70 °C and 2-10 °C. After long-term storage, a slight increase in sensitivity could not be ruled out.

Comparison of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein antibodies in healthcare workers and an unselected adult and paediatric all-comer patient population: insights from a longitudinal study of healthcare workers and concurrent serial cross-sectional studies of patients at an academic medical centre in Austria.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate and compare the prevalence of the virus-specific antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein antigen (anti-SARS-CoV-2 N) in healthcare workers and an all-comer paediatric and adult patient population. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A longitudinal study enrolling healthcare professionals and concurrent serial cross-sectional studies of unselected all-comer patients were conducted at an Austrian academic medical centre. Healthcare workers were tested at enrolment and after 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months. The cross-sectional studies in patients were conducted at three time periods, which roughly coincided with the times after the first, second and third wave of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria (ie, 24 August-7 September 2020; 8-22 February 2021 and 9-23 November 2021). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N antibodies were measured using a sandwich electrochemiluminescence assay (Roche). RESULTS: In total, 2735 and 9275 samples were measured in 812 healthcare workers (median age: 40 years, 78% female) and 8451 patients (median age: 55 years, 52% female), respectively. Over the entire study period, anti-SARS-CoV-2 N antibodies were detected in 98 of 812 healthcare workers, resulting in a seroprevalence of 12.1% (95% CI 10.0% to 14.5%), which did not differ significantly (p=0.63) from that of the all-comer patient population at the end of the study period (407/3184; 12.8%, 95% CI 11.7% to 14.0%). The seroprevalence between healthcare workers and patients did not differ significantly at any time and was 1.5-fold to 2-fold higher than the number of confirmed cases in Austria throughout the pandemic. In particular, there was no significant difference in the seroprevalence between paediatric and adult patients at any of the tested time periods. CONCLUSION: Throughout the pandemic, healthcare staff and an adult and paediatric all-comer patient population had similar exposure to SARS-CoV-2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04407429.

One-Year Follow-Up of COVID-19 Patients Indicates Substantial Assay-Dependent Differences in the Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

Determination of antibody levels against the nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are used to estimate the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Differences in the design and specification of antibody assays challenge the interpretation of test results, and comparative studies are often limited to single time points per patient. We determined the longitudinal kinetics of antibody levels of 145 unvaccinated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at four visits over 1 year upon convalescence using 8 commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays (from Abbott, DiaSorin, Roche, Siemens, and Technoclone), as well as a virus neutralization test (VNT). A linear regression model was used to investigate whether antibody results obtained in the first 6 months after disease onset could predict the VNT results at 12 months. Spike protein-specific antibody tests showed good correlation to the VNT at individual time points (rS, 0.74 to 0.92). While longitudinal assay comparison with the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S test showed almost constant antibody concentrations over 12 months, the VNT and all other tests indicated a decline in serum antibody levels (median decrease to 14% to 36% of baseline). The antibody level at 3 months was the best predictor of the VNT results at 12 months after disease onset. The current standardization to a WHO calibrator for normalization to binding antibody units (BAU) is not sufficient for the harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Assay-specific differences in absolute values and trends over time need to be considered when interpreting the course of antibody levels in patients. IMPORTANCE Determination of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 will play an important role in detecting a sufficient immune response. Although all the manufacturers expressed antibody levels in binding antibody units per milliliter, thus suggesting comparable results, we found discrepant behavior between the eight investigated assays when we followed the antibody levels in a cohort of 145 convalescent patients over 1 year. While one assay yielded constant antibody levels, the others showed decreasing antibody levels to a varying extent. Therefore, the comparability of the assays must be improved regarding the long-term kinetics of antibody levels. This is a prerequisite for establishing reliable antibody level cutoffs for sufficient individual protection against SARS-CoV-2.

Increasing test specificity without impairing sensitivity: lessons learned from SARS-CoV-2 serology.

BACKGROUND: Serological tests are widely used in various medical disciplines for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Unfortunately, the sensitivity and specificity of test systems are often poor, leaving room for false-positive and false-negative results. However, conventional methods were used to increase specificity and decrease sensitivity and vice versa. Using SARS-CoV-2 serology as an example, we propose here a novel testing strategy: the 'sensitivity improved two-test' or 'SIT²' algorithm. METHODS: SIT² involves confirmatory retesting of samples with results falling in a predefined retesting zone of an initial screening test, with adjusted cut-offs to increase sensitivity. We verified and compared the performance of SIT² to single tests and orthogonal testing (OTA) in an Austrian cohort (1117 negative, 64 post-COVID-positive samples) and validated the algorithm in an independent British cohort (976 negatives and 536 positives). RESULTS: The specificity of SIT² was superior to single tests and non-inferior to OTA. The sensitivity was maintained or even improved using SIT² when compared with single tests or OTA. SIT² allowed correct identification of infected individuals even when a live virus neutralisation assay could not detect antibodies. Compared with single testing or OTA, SIT² significantly reduced total test errors to 0.46% (0.24-0.65) or 1.60% (0.94-2.38) at both 5% or 20% seroprevalence. CONCLUSION: For SARS-CoV-2 serology, SIT² proved to be the best diagnostic choice at both 5% and 20% seroprevalence in all tested scenarios. It is an easy to apply algorithm and can potentially be helpful for the serology of other infectious diseases.

The spoils of war and the long-term spoiling of health conditions of entire nations.

The healthcare system of Ukraine was already suffering from several shortfalls before February 2022, but the war of aggression started by the Russian leadership is poised to inflict a further severe blow that will have long-lasting consequences for the health of all Ukrainians. In pre-war Ukraine, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) contributed to 91% of deaths, especially cardiovascular diseases (67%). Ukrainians have a high prevalence of risk factors for NCDs ranking among the highest levels reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the European (EU) Region. Cardiovascular disease is one of the key health risks for the conflict-affected Ukrainian population due to significant limitations in access to health care and interruptions in the supply of medicines and resources. The excess mortality observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to a combination of viral illness and chronic disease states, is bound to increase exponentially from poorly treated NCDs. In this report, we discuss the impact of the war on the public health of Ukraine and potential interventions to provide remote health assistance to the Ukrainian population.

The Comparability of Anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests is Time-Dependent: a Prospective Observational Study.

Various commercial anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for studies and in clinical settings after vaccination. An international standard for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies has been established to achieve comparability of such tests, allowing conversions to BAU/mL. This study aimed to investigate the comparability of antibody tests regarding the timing of blood collection after vaccination. For this prospective observational study, antibody levels of 50 participants with homologous AZD1222 vaccination were evaluated at 3 and 11 weeks after the first dose and 3 weeks after the second dose using two commercial anti-Spike binding antibody assays (Roche and Abbott) and a surrogate neutralization assay. The correlation between Roche and Abbott changed significantly depending on the time point studied. Although Abbott provided values three times higher than Roche 3 weeks after the first dose, the values for Roche were twice as high as for Abbott 11 weeks after the first dose and 5 to 6 times higher at 3 weeks after the second dose. The comparability of quantitative anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests was highly dependent on the timing of blood collection after vaccination. Therefore, standardization of the timing of blood collection might be necessary for the comparability of different quantitative SARS-COV-2 antibody assays. IMPORTANCE This work showed that the comparability of apparently standardized SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays (Roche, Abbott; both given in BAU/mL) after vaccination depends on the time of blood withdrawal. Initially (3 weeks after the first dose AZD1222), there were 3 times higher values in the Abbott assay, but this relationship inversed before boosting (11 weeks after the first dose) with Roche 2 times greater than Abbott. After the booster, Roche quantified ca. 5 times higher levels than Abbott. This must be considered by clinicians when interpreting SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels.

Impact of Specific N-Glycan Modifications on the Use of Plant-Produced SARS-CoV-2 Antigens in Serological Assays.

The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein plays a key role in the virus-host cell interaction, and viral infection. The RBD is a major target for neutralizing antibodies, whilst recombinant RBD is commonly used as an antigen in serological assays. Such assays are essential tools to gain control over the pandemic and detect the extent and durability of an immune response in infected or vaccinated populations. Transient expression in plants can contribute to the fast production of viral antigens, which are required by industry in high amounts. Whilst plant-produced RBDs are glycosylated, N-glycan modifications in plants differ from humans. This can give rise to the formation of carbohydrate epitopes that can be recognized by anti-carbohydrate antibodies present in human sera. For the performance of serological tests using plant-produced recombinant viral antigens, such cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) could result in false positives. Here, we transiently expressed an RBD variant in wild-type and glycoengineered Nicotiana benthamiana leaves and characterized the impact of different plant-specific N-glycans on RBD reactivity in serological assays. While the overall performance of the different RBD glycoforms was comparable to each other and to a human cell line produced RBD, there was a higher tendency toward false positive results with sera containing allergy-related CCD-antibodies when an RBD carrying ß1,2-xylose and core α1,3-fucose was used. These rare events could be further minimized by pre-incubating sera from allergic individuals with a CCD-inhibitor. Thereby, false positive signals obtained from anti-CCD antibodies, could be reduced by 90%, on average.

Serum antibody response to BNT162b2 after natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: There is preliminary evidence that individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infections exhibit a more pronounced antibody response. However, these assumptions have not yet been supported by data obtained through various CE-marked tests. This study aimed to close this gap. METHODS: Sixty-nine seronegatives and 12 individuals post-SARS-CoV-2 infection (tested by CE-labelled Roche NC immunoassay or PCR-confirmed assay) were included 21 ± 1 days after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine. Antibody response to viral spike protein (S) was assessed by CE-labelled Roche S and DiaSorin S1/S2 assays and by a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). RESULTS: After a single dose of BNT162b2, individuals after natural SARS-CoV-2 infection presented with markedly higher anti-S levels than naïve individuals (Roche S: 9078.5 BAU/mL [5267.0-24 298.5] vs 79.6 [24.7-142.3]; and DiaSorin S1/S2: 1465.0 AU/mL [631.0-5365.0] vs 63.7 [47.8-87.5]) and showed all the maximum observed inhibition activity in the sVNT (98%), without overlaps between groups. There was a trend for higher responses in those with a more distant infection, although not statistically significant. The relative antibody increase after dose 2 was significantly higher among naïve individuals (25-fold), but antibody levels remained below that of seropositives. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with naïve individuals, seropositives after natural SARS-CoV-2 infection presented with a substantially higher antibody response already after dose 1 of BNT162b2, as measured by two CE-marked in vitro diagnostic tests and a sVNT. These results should stimulate discussion and research on whether individuals after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection would benefit from a two-part vaccination schedule or whether these currently much-needed second doses could be saved.

Initial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination response can predict booster response for BNT162b2 but not for AZD1222.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody levels after the first dose of vaccine can predict the final antibody response, and whether this is dependent on the vaccine type. METHODS: Sixty-nine recipients of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and 55 recipients of AZD1222 (AstraZeneca), without previous infection or immunosuppressive medication, were included in this study. Antibody levels were quantified 3 weeks after the first dose [directly before boostering in the case of AZD1222 (11 weeks after the first dose)] and 3 weeks after the second dose using the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S total antibody assay. RESULTS: Median pre-booster {BNT162b2: 80.6 [interquartile range (IQR) 25.5-167.0] binding antibody units (BAU)/mL; AZD1222: 56.4 (IQR 36.4-104.8) BAU/mL; not significant} and post-booster [BNT162b2: 2092.0 (IQR 1216.3-4431.8) BAU/mL; AZD1222: 957.0 (IQR 684.5-1684.8) BAU/mL; P<0.0001] levels correlated well in the recipients of BNT162b2 (ρ=0.53) but not in the recipients of AZD1222. Moreover, antibody levels after the first dose of BNT162b2 correlated inversely with age (ρ=-0.33, P=0.013), whereas a positive correlation with age was observed after the second dose in recipients of AZD1222 (ρ=0.26, P=0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that antibody levels quantified by the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S assay before the booster shot could infer post-booster responses to BNT162b2, but not to AZ1222. In addition, this study found a vaccine-dependent effect on antibody responses, where age seems to play an ambivalent role.

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.

Clinical validation of the Siemens quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay (sCOVG) reveals improved sensitivity and a good correlation with virus neutralization titers.

OBJECTIVES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections cause coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and induce a specific antibody response. Serological assays detecting IgG against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein are useful to monitor the immune response after infection or vaccination. The objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG) assay. METHODS: Sensitivity and specificity of the Siemens sCOVG test were evaluated on 178 patients with SARS-CoV-2-infection and 160 pre-pandemic samples in comparison with its predecessor test COV2G. Furthermore, correlation with virus neutralization titers was investigated on 134 samples of convalescent COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Specificity of the sCOVG test was 99.4% and sensitivity was 90.5% (COV2G assay 78.7%; p<0.0001). S1-RBD antibody levels showed a good correlation with virus neutralization titers (r=0.843; p<0.0001) and an overall qualitative agreement of 98.5%. Finally, median S1-RBD IgG levels increase with age and were significantly higher in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (median levels general ward: 25.7 U/mL; intensive care: 59.5 U/mL) than in outpatients (3.8 U/mL; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Performance characteristics of the sCOVG assay have been improved compared to the predecessor test COV2G. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 S1-RBD IgG levels could be used as a surrogate for virus neutralization capacity. Further harmonization of antibody quantification might assist to monitor the humoral immune response after COVID-19 disease or vaccination.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Three Fully Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays with a Focus on Specificity.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous new serological test systems for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies rapidly have become available. However, the clinical performance of many of these is still insufficiently described. Therefore, we compared 3 commercial CE-marked, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays side by side. METHODS: We included a total of 1154 specimens from pre-COVID-19 times and 65 samples from COVID-19 patients (≥14 days after symptom onset) to evaluate the test performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin. RESULTS: All 3 assays presented with high specificities: 99.2% (98.6-99.7) for Abbott, 99.7% (99.2-100.0) for Roche, and 98.3% (97.3-98.9) for DiaSorin. In contrast to the manufacturers' specifications, sensitivities only ranged from 83.1% to 89.2%. Although the 3 methods were in good agreement (Cohen's Kappa 0.71-0.87), McNemar tests revealed significant differences between results obtained from Roche and DiaSorin. However, at low seroprevalences, the minor differences in specificity resulted in profound discrepancies of positive predictive values at 1% seroprevalence: 52.3% (36.2-67.9), 77.6% (52.8-91.5), and 32.6% (23.6-43.1) for Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin, respectively. CONCLUSION: We found diagnostically relevant differences in specificities for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin that have a significant impact on the positive predictive values of these tests.