RESUMO
The virus neutralization test (VNT) is the reference for the assessment of the functional ability of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) to block SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. New competitive immunoassays measuring antibodies preventing interaction between the spike protein and its cellular receptor are proposed as surrogate VNT (sVNT). We tested three commercial sVNT (a qualitative immunochromatographic test and two quantitative immunoassays named YHLO and TECO) together with a conventional anti-spike IgG assay (bioMerieux) in comparison with an in-house plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) using the original 19A strain and different variants of concern (VOC), on a panel of 306 sera from naturally-infected or vaccinated patients. The qualitative test was rapidly discarded because of poor sensitivity and specificity. Areas under the curve of YHLO and TECO assays were, respectively, 85.83 and 84.07 (p-value >0.05) using a positivity threshold of 20 for PRNT50, and 95.63 and 90.35 (p-value =0.02) using a threshold of 80. However, the performances of YHLO and bioMerieux were very close for both thresholds, demonstrating the absence of added value of sVNT compared to a conventional assay for the evaluation of the presence of NAb in seropositive subjects. In addition, the PRNT50 assay showed a reduction of NAb titers towards different VOC in comparison to the 19A strain that could not be appreciated by the commercial tests. Despite the good correlation between the anti-spike antibody titer and the titer of NAb by PRNT50, our results highlight the difficulty to distinguish true NAb among the anti-RBD antibodies with commercial user-friendly immunoassays.
RESUMO
With the availability of vaccines, commercial assays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Ab) evolved towards quantitative assays directed to the spike glycoprotein or its receptor binding domain (RBD). The main objective of the present study was to compare the Ab titers obtained with quantitative commercial binding Ab assays, after 1 dose (convalescent individuals) or 2 doses (naive individuals) of vaccine, in healthcare workers (HCW). Antibody titers were measured in 255 sera (from 150 HCW) with 5 quantitative immunoassays (Abbott RBD IgG II quant, bioMerieux RBD IgG, DiaSorin Trimeric spike IgG, Siemens Healthineers RBD IgG, Wantai RBD IgG). One qualitative total antibody anti RBD detection assay (Wantai) was used to detect previous infection before vaccination. The results are presented in binding Ab units (BAU)/mL after application, when possible, of a conversion factor provided by the manufacturers and established from a World Health Organization (WHO) internal standard. There was a 100% seroconversion with all assays evaluated after two doses of vaccine. With assays allowing BAU/ml correction, Ab titers were correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, {rho}, range: 0.85-0.94). The titer differences varied by a mean of 10.6% between Siemens and bioMerieux assays to 60.9% between Abbott and DiaSorin assays. These results underline the importance of BAU conversion for the comparison of Ab titer obtained with the different quantitative assays. However, significant differences persist, notably, between kits detecting Ab against the different antigens. A true standardization of the assays would be to include the International Standard in the calibration of each assays to express the results in IU/mL.
RESUMO
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 mutations appeared recently and can lead to conformational changes in the spike protein and probably induce modifications in antigenicity. In this study, we wanted to assess the neutralizing capacity of antibodies to prevent cell infection, using a live virus neutralisation test. MethodsSera samples were collected from different populations: two-dose vaccinated COVID-19-naive healthcare workers (HCWs; Pfizer-BioNTech BNT161b2), 6-months post mild COVID-19 HCWs, and critical COVID-19 patients. We tested various clades such as 19A (initial one), 20B (B.1.1.241 lineage), 20I/501Y.V1 (B.1.1.7 lineage), and 20H/501Y.V2 (B.1.351 lineage). ResultsNo significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralisation ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralising antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralisation capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups. ConclusionNeutralisation capacity was slightly reduced for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post infection. No neutralisation escape could be feared concerning the two variants of concern in both populations. The reduced neutralising response observed towards the 20H/501Y.V2 in comparison with the 19A and 20I/501Y.V1 isolates in fully immunized subjects with the BNT162b2 vaccine is a striking finding of the study.
RESUMO
We conducted a prospective study in healthcare workers (n=296) of the University Hospital of Lyon, France. Serum samples (n=296) collected six months after disease onset were tested using three commercial assays: the Wantai Ab assay detecting total antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the S protein, the bioMerieux Vidas assay detecting IgG to the RBD and the Abbott Architect assay detecting IgG to the N protein. The neutralising antibody (NAb) titre was also determined for all samples with a virus neutralisation assay (VNA) using live virus. The positivity rate was 100% with the Wantai assay, 84.8% with the bioMerieux assay and 55.4% with the Abbott assay. Only 51% of HCWs were positive for the presence of NAb. Less than 10 % of HCWs had a NAb titre greater than 80. At a neutralising titre of 80, the area under the curves [IC 95%] was 0.71 [0.62-0.81], 0.75 [0.65-0.85] and 0.95 [0.92-0.97] for Wantai, Abbott and Vidas respectively. The data presented herein suggest that commercial assays detecting antibodies against the N protein must not be used in long-term seroprevalence surveys while the Wantai assay could be useful for this purpose. VNA should remain the gold standard to assess the protective antibody response, but some commercial assays could be used as first-line screening of long-term presence of NAb.
RESUMO
BackgroundA comprehensive assessment of COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs) including the investigation of viral shedding duration is critical. MethodsA longitudinal study including 319 HCWs was conducted. After SARS-CoV-2 screening with RT-PCR assay, other respiratory pathogens were tested with a multiplex molecular panel. For SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs, the normalized viral load was determined weekly; viral culture and virus neutralization assays were also performed. For 190 HCWs tested negative, SARS-CoV-2 serological testing was performed one month after the inclusion. FindingsOf the 319 HCWs included, 67 (21.0%) were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; two of them developed severe COVID-19. The proportion of smell and taste dysfunction was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs than in negative ones (38.8% vs 9.5% and 37.3% vs 10.7%, respectively, p<0.001). Of the 67 positive patients, 9.1% were tested positive for at least another respiratory pathogen (vs 19.5%, p=0.07). The proportion of HCWs with a viral load > 5.0 log10 cp/ml (Ct value <25) was less than 15% at 8 days after symptom onset; 12% of them were still positive after 40 days (Ct >37). More than 90% of culturable virus had a viral load > 4.5 log10 cp/ml (Ct < 26) and were collected within 10 days after symptom onset. From HCWs tested negative, 6/190 (3.2%) exhibited seroconversion for IgG antibodies. InterpretationOur data suggest that the determination of normalized viral load (or its estimation through Ct values) can be useful for discontinuing isolation of HCWs and facilitating their safe return to work. HCWs presenting mild COVID-19 are unlikely infectious 10 days after symptom onset. FundingFondation des Hospices Civils de Lyon. bioMerieux provided diagnostic kits.
RESUMO
ObjectivesWe evaluated widely-used SARS-CoV-2 serological tests and their potential association with virus neutralization test (VNT) in a cohort of mild COVID-19 patients. MethodsA total of 439 specimens were longitudinally collected from 76 healthcare workers with RT-PCR-confirmed mild COVID-19. Nine serological assays developed by leading global companies (Abbott, DiaSorin, Siemens, Bio-Rad, Wantai, bioMerieux, Euroimmun) were assessed. For each test the sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was determined weekly after symptom onset. Correlation and concordance were assessed using the Spearman and Cohens Kappa coefficients, respectively. Positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement (NPA) with the VNT were also determined. ResultsThe Wantai Total Ab assay targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the S protein presented the best sensitivity at different times during the course of disease. The best correlation between antibody level and neutralizing antibody titer was found with the Euroimmun S1-based IgA assay (Spearman coefficient [95%CI]: 0.71 [0.61-0.79]). A moderate concordance (Kappa [95%CI]: 0.43[0.23-0.63]) as well as the lowest NPA (33%) was found between the Wantai Total Ab assay and the VNT. Compared to the Wantai Total Ab assay, other total Ab or IgG assays targeting the S or the RBD (bioMerieux, DiaSorin, Siemens,) were more concordant with the VNT (Kappa>0.7 for the three tests) and had a higher NPA (range: 90% to 97%). ConclusionsAlthough some assays presented a better concordance with VNT than others, the present findings emphasize that commercialized serological tests including those targeting the RBD cannot substitute VNT for the assessment of functional antibody response.
