First external quality assurance of antibody diagnostic for SARS-new coronavirus

Measuring the Serologic Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: Methods and Meaning

The entire spectrum of diagnostic testing, from reagent supply to test performance, has been a major focus during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The hope for serologic testing is that it will provide both epidemiologic information about seroprevalence as well as individual information about previous infection. This information is particularly helpful for high-risk individuals who may be outside of the viral shedding window, such as children with suspected multisystem inflammatory syndrome. It is not yet understood whether serologic testing can be interpreted in terms of protective immunity. These concerns must be addressed using highly sensitive and specific tests.

Results of the first pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for anti-SARS-CoV2-antibody testing

Objectives Assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity is cornerstones in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic. For pandemic control, reliable assays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are required. This pilot external quality assessment (EQA) scheme aimed to independently assess the participants' clinical performance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 testing, to identify shortcomings in clinical practice and to evaluate the suitability of the scheme format. Methods The EQA scheme consisted of eight serum samples with variable reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 intended for the analysis of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgA, and IgM antibodies. Laboratories reported: (1) results for each sample and the respective method, (2) raw data from replicate testing of each sample. Results The 16 selected pilot EQA participants reported 294 interpreted results and 796 raw data results from replicate testing. The overall error rate for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM tests was 2.7, 6.9, and 16.7%, respectively. While the overall diagnostic specificity was rated as very high, sensitivity rates between 67 and 98% indicate considerable quality differences between the manufacturers, especially for IgA and IgM. Conclusions Even the results reported by the small number of participants indicate a very heterogeneous landscape of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological testing. Differences of available tests and the individual performance of laboratories result in a success rate of 57.1% with one laboratory succeeding for all three antibody-classes. These results are an incentive for laboratories to participate in upcoming open EQA schemes that are needed to achieve a harmonization of test results and to improve serological testing.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing-questions to be asked

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and development of coronavirus disease 2019 presents a major health care challenge of global dimensions. Laboratory diagnostics of infected patients, and the assessment of immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, presents a major cornerstone in handling the pandemic. Currently, there is an increase in demand for antibody testing and a large number of tests are already marketed or are in the late stage of development. However, the interpretation of test results depends on many variables and factors, including sensitivity, specificity, potential cross-reactivity and cross-protectivity, the diagnostic value of antibodies of different isotypes, and the use of antibody testing in identification of acutely ill patients or in epidemiological settings. In this article, the recently established COVID-19 Task Force of the German Society for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (DGKL) addresses these issues on the basis of currently available data sets in this rapidly moving field.

Serological assays for emerging coronaviruses: challenges and pitfalls

•

Serological studies on SARS- and MERS-coronavirus (CoV) diagnostics were reviewed.

•

Different types of serological assays and variable antigens were compared.

•

Immunogenic epitopes of CoV spike proteins were less conserved than nucleocapsid proteins.

•

Use of spike proteins was found to be superior over nucleocapsid proteins.

•

Applicability of serological assays for analysis of animal sera was reviewed.

More than a decade after the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2002/2003 the occurrence of a novel CoV termed Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) CoV challenges researchers and public health authorities. To control spread and finally contain novel viruses, rapid identification and subsequent isolation of infected individuals and their contacts is of utmost importance. Next to methods for nucleic acid detection, validated serological assays are particularly important as the timeframe for antibody detection is less restricted. During the SARS-CoV epidemic a wide variety of serological diagnostic assays were established using multiple methods as well as different viral antigens. Even though the majority of the developed assays showed high sensitivity and specificity, numerous studies reported on cross-reactive antibodies to antigens from wide-spread common cold associated CoVs. In order to improve preparedness and responsiveness during future outbreaks of novel CoVs, information and problems regarding serological diagnosis that occurred during the SARS-CoV should be acknowledged.

In this review we summarize the performance of different serological assays as well as the applicability of the two main applied antigens (spike and nucleocapsid protein) used during the SARS-CoV outbreak. We highlight challenges and potential pitfalls that occur when dealing with a novel emerging coronavirus like MERS-CoV. In addition we describe problems that might occur when animal sera are tested in serological assays for the identification of putative reservoirs. Finally, we give a recommendation for a serological testing scheme and outline necessary improvements that should be implemented for a better preparedness.

The European network of Biosafety-Level-4 laboratories: enhancing European preparedness for new health threats

Emerging and re-emerging infections and possible bioterrorism acts will continue to challenge both the medical community and civilian populations worldwide, urging health authorities to respond rapidly and effectively. Established in 2005, the European Community (EC)-funded European Network of Biosafety-Level-4 laboratories (Euronet-P4), which brings together the laboratories in Porton Down, London, Hamburg, Marburg, Solna, Lyon and Rome, seeks to increase international collaboration in the areas of high containment laboratory biosafety and viral diagnostic capability, to strengthen Europe's capacity to respond to an infectious disease emergency, and to offer assistance to countries not equipped with such costly facilities. Network partners have agreed on a common strategy to fill the gaps identified in the field of risk group-4 agents’ laboratory diagnosis, namely the lack of standardization and of reference samples. The network has received a further 3-year funding, to offer assistance to external laboratories, and to start the planning of field activities.