Performance comparison of micro-neutralization assays based on surrogate SARS-CoV-2 and WT SARS-CoV-2 in assessing virus-neutralizing capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay, Surrogate Neutralization and Virus Neutralization Test

BACKGROUND

Since sensitivity and specificity vary widely between tests, SARS-CoV-2 serology results should be interpreted with caution.

METHODS

The study included serum samples from patients who had recovered from COVID-19 (n = 71), individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (n = 84), and asymptomatic individuals (n = 33). All samples were tested for the presence of binding antibodies (enzyme immunoassay; EIA), neutralizing (NT) antibodies (virus neutralization test; VNT), and surrogate NT (sNT) antibodies (surrogate virus neutralization test; sVNT) of SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2-binding antibodies were detected in 71 (100%) COVID-19 patients, 77 (91.6%) vaccinated individuals, and 4 (12.1%) control subjects. Among EIA-positive samples, VNT was positive (titer ≥ 8) in 100% of COVID-19 patients and 63 (75.0%) of the vaccinated individuals, while sVNT was positive (>30% inhibition) in 62 (87.3%) patients and 59 (70.2%) vaccinated individuals. The analysis of antibody levels showed a significant moderate positive correlation between EIA and VNT, a moderate positive correlation between EIA and sVNT, and a strong positive correlation between VNT and sVNT. The proportion of positive sVNT detection rate was associated with VNT titer. The lowest positivity (72.4%/70.8%) was detected in samples with low NT titers (8/16) and increased progressively from 88.2% in samples with titer 32 to 100% in samples with titer 256.

CONCLUSIONS

sVNT appeared to be a reliable method for the assessment COVID-19 serology in patients with high antibody levels, while false-negative results were frequently observed in patients with low NT titers.

Validation and Establishment of the SARS-CoV-2 Lentivirus Surrogate Neutralization Assay as a Prescreening Tool for the Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test

Neutralization assays are important for understanding and quantifying neutralizing antibody responses toward severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 lentivirus surrogate neutralization assay (SCLSNA) can be used in biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) laboratories and has been shown to be a reliable alternative approach to the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). In this study, we optimized and validated the SCLSNA to assess its ability as a comparator and prescreening method to support the PRNT. Comparability between the PRNT and SCLSNA was determined through clinical sensitivity and specificity evaluations. Clinical sensitivity and specificity assays produced acceptable results, with 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94% to 100%) specificity and 100% (95% CI, 94% to 100%) sensitivity against ancestral Wuhan spike-pseudotyped lentivirus. The sensitivity and specificity against B.1.1.7 spike-pseudotyped lentivirus were 88.3% (95% CI, 77.8% to 94.2%) and 100% (95% CI, 94% to 100%), respectively. Assay precision measuring intra-assay variability produced acceptable results for high (50% PRNT [PRNT₅₀], 1:≥640), mid (PRNT₅₀, 1:160), and low (PRNT₅₀, 1:40) antibody titer concentration ranges based on the PRNT₅₀, with coefficients of variation (CVs) of 14.21%, 12.47%, and 13.28%, respectively. Intermediate precision indicated acceptable ranges for the high and mid concentrations, with CVs of 15.52% and 16.09%, respectively. However, the low concentration did not meet the acceptance criteria, with a CV of 26.42%. Acceptable ranges were found in the robustness evaluation for both intra-assay and interassay variability. In summary, the validation parameters tested met the acceptance criteria, making the SCLSNA method fit for its intended purpose, which can be used to support the PRNT. IMPORTANCE Neutralization studies play an important role in providing guidance and justification for vaccine administration and helping prevent the spread of diseases. The neutralization data generated in our laboratory have been included in the decision-making process of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) in Canada. During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) has been the gold standard for determining neutralization of SARS-CoV-2. We validated a SARS-CoV-2 lentivirus surrogate neutralization assay (SCLSNA) as an alternative method to help support the PRNT. The advantages of using the SCLSNA is that it can process more samples, is less tedious to perform, and can be used in laboratories with a lower biosafety level. The use of the SCLSNA can further expand our capabilities to help fulfill the requirements for NACI and other important collaborations.

Assessing the Reliability of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Studies That Use Post-Vaccination Sera

Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants is crucial for determining future vaccination strategies and other public health strategies. When clinical effectiveness data are unavailable, a common method of assessing vaccine performance is to utilize neutralization assays using post-vaccination sera. Neutralization studies are typically performed across a wide array of settings, populations and vaccination strategies, and using different methodologies. For any comparison and meta-analysis to be meaningful, the design and methodology of the studies used must at minimum address aspects that confer a certain degree of reliability and comparability. We identified and characterized three important categories in which studies differ (cohort details, assay details and data reporting details) and that can affect the overall reliability and/or usefulness of neutralization assay results. We define reliability as a measure of methodological accuracy, proper study setting concerning subjects, samples and viruses, and reporting quality. Each category comprises a set of several relevant key parameters. To each parameter, we assigned a possible impact (ranging from low to high) on overall study reliability depending on its potential to influence the results. We then developed a reliability assessment tool that assesses the aggregate reliability of a study across all parameters. The reliability assessment tool provides explicit selection criteria for inclusion of comparable studies in meta-analyses of neutralization activity of SARS-CoV-2 variants in post-vaccination sera and can also both guide the design of future neutralization studies and serve as a checklist for including important details on key parameters in publications.