Head-to-head evaluation of seven different seroassays including direct viral neutralisation in a representative cohort for SARS-CoV-2

Long-term monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and variants in Ethiopia provides prediction for immunity and cross-immunity

Under-reporting of COVID-19 and the limited information about circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants remain major challenges for many African countries. We analyzed SARS-CoV-2 infection dynamics in Addis Ababa and Jimma, Ethiopia, focusing on reinfection, immunity, and vaccination effects. We conducted an antibody serology study spanning August 2020 to July 2022 with five rounds of data collection across a population of 4723, sequenced PCR-test positive samples, used available test positivity rates, and constructed two mathematical models integrating this data. A multivariant model explores variant dynamics identifying wildtype, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.4/5 as key variants in the study population, and cross-immunity between variants, revealing risk reductions between 24% and 69%. An antibody-level model predicts slow decay leading to sustained high antibody levels. Retrospectively, increased early vaccination might have substantially reduced infections during the delta and omicron waves in the considered group of individuals, though further vaccination now seems less impactful.

SARS-CoV-2 infections among pregnant women, 2020, Finland-Cross-testing of neutralization assays

We studied the development of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in southern Finland in 2020 and evaluated the performance of two surrogate immunoassays for the detection of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). The data set consisted of 12 000 retrospectively collected samples from pregnant women in their first trimester throughout 2020. All the samples were initially screened for immunoglobulin G (IgG) with SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody assay (EIM-S1, Euroimmun) followed by confirmation with nucleocapsid antibody assay (Architect SARS-CoV-2, Abbott). Samples that were reactive (positive or borderline) with both assays were subjected to testing with commercial surrogate immunoassays of NeutraLISA (EIM) and cPassTM (GenScript Biotech Corporation) by using pseudoneutralization assay (PNAbA) as a golden standard. No seropositive cases were detected between January and March. Between April and December, IgG (EIM-S1 and Abbott positive) and NAb (PNAbA positive) seroprevalences were between 0.4% and 1.4%. NeutraLISA showed 90% and cPass 55% concordant results with PNAbA among PNAbA negative samples and 49% and 92% among PNAbA positive samples giving NeutraLISA better specificity but lower sensitivity than cPass. To conclude, seroprevalence in pregnant women reflected that of the general population but the variability of the performance of serological protocols needs to be taken into account in inter-study comparison.

Clinical and laboratory considerations: determining an antibody-based composite correlate of risk for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or severe COVID-19

Much of the global population now has some level of adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 induced by exposure to the virus (natural infection), vaccination, or a combination of both (hybrid immunity). Key questions that subsequently arise relate to the duration and the level of protection an individual might expect based on their infection and vaccination history. A multi-component composite correlate of risk (CoR) could inform individuals and stakeholders about protection and aid decision making. This perspective evaluates the various elements that need to be accommodated in the development of an antibody-based composite CoR for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or development of severe COVID-19, including variation in exposure dose, transmission route, viral genetic variation, patient factors, and vaccination status. We provide an overview of antibody dynamics to aid exploration of the specifics of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. We further discuss anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, sample matrices, testing formats, frequency of sampling and the optimal time point for such sampling. While the development of a composite CoR is challenging, we provide our recommendations for each of these key areas and highlight areas that require further work to be undertaken.

Studying temporal titre evolution of commercial SARS-CoV-2 assays reveals significant shortcomings of using BAU standardization for comparison

BACKGROUND

Measuring specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies has become one of the main epidemiological tools to survey the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but also vaccination response. The WHO made available a set of well-characterized samples derived from recovered individuals to allow normalization between different quantitative anti-Spike assays to defined Binding Antibody Units (BAU).

METHODS

To assess sero-responses longitudinally, a cohort of ninety-nine SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive subjects was followed up together with forty-five vaccinees without previous infection but with two vaccinations. Sero-responses were evaluated using a total of six different assays: four measuring anti-Spike proteins (converted to BAU), one measuring anti-Nucleocapsid proteins and one SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization. Both cohorts were evaluated using the Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA anti-S1 IgG and the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 assay.

RESULTS

In SARS-CoV-2-convalesce subjects, the BAU-sero-responses of Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA anti-S1 IgG and Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 peaked both at 47 (43-51) days, the first assay followed by a slow decay thereafter (> 208 days), while the second assay not presenting any decay within one year. Both assay values in BAUs are only equivalent a few months after infection, elsewhere correction factors up to 10 are necessary. In contrast, in infection-naive vaccinees the assays perform similarly.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study suggest that the establishment of a protective correlate or vaccination booster recommendation based on different assays, although BAU-standardised, is still challenging. At the moment the characteristics of the available assays used are not related, and the BAU-standardisation is unable to correct for that.

The Prospective COVID-19 Post-Immunization Serological Cohort in Munich (KoCo-Impf): Risk Factors and Determinants of Immune Response in Healthcare Workers

Antibody studies analyze immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infection, which is crucial for selecting vaccination strategies. In the KoCo-Impf study, conducted between 16 June and 16 December 2021, 6088 participants aged 18 and above from Munich were recruited to monitor antibodies, particularly in healthcare workers (HCWs) at higher risk of infection. Roche Elecsys^® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays on dried blood spots were used to detect prior infections (anti-Nucleocapsid antibodies) and to indicate combinations of vaccinations/infections (anti-Spike antibodies). The anti-Spike seroprevalence was 94.7%, whereas, for anti-Nucleocapsid, it was only 6.9%. HCW status and contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were identified as infection risk factors, while vaccination and current smoking were associated with reduced risk. Older age correlated with higher anti-Nucleocapsid antibody levels, while vaccination and current smoking decreased the response. Vaccination alone or combined with infection led to higher anti-Spike antibody levels. Increasing time since the second vaccination, advancing age, and current smoking reduced the anti-Spike response. The cumulative number of cases in Munich affected the anti-Spike response over time but had no impact on anti-Nucleocapsid antibody development/seropositivity. Due to the significantly higher infection risk faced by HCWs and the limited number of significant risk factors, it is suggested that all HCWs require protection regardless of individual traits.

The representative COVID-19 cohort Munich (KoCo19): from the beginning of the pandemic to the Delta virus variant

BACKGROUND

Population-based serological studies allow to estimate prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections despite a substantial number of mild or asymptomatic disease courses. This became even more relevant for decision making after vaccination started. The KoCo19 cohort tracks the pandemic progress in the Munich general population for over two years, setting it apart in Europe.

METHODS

Recruitment occurred during the initial pandemic wave, including 5313 participants above 13 years from private households in Munich. Four follow-ups were held at crucial times of the pandemic, with response rates of at least 70%. Participants filled questionnaires on socio-demographics and potential risk factors of infection. From Follow-up 2, information on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was added. SARS-CoV-2 antibody status was measured using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-N assay (indicating previous infection) and the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S assay (indicating previous infection and/or vaccination). This allowed us to distinguish between sources of acquired antibodies.

RESULTS

The SARS-CoV-2 estimated cumulative sero-prevalence increased from 1.6% (1.1-2.1%) in May 2020 to 14.5% (12.7-16.2%) in November 2021. Underreporting with respect to official numbers fluctuated with testing policies and capacities, becoming a factor of more than two during the second half of 2021. Simultaneously, the vaccination campaign against the SARS-CoV-2 virus increased the percentage of the Munich population having antibodies, with 86.8% (85.5-87.9%) having developed anti-S and/or anti-N in November 2021. Incidence rates for infections after (BTI) and without previous vaccination (INS) differed (ratio INS/BTI of 2.1, 0.7-3.6). However, the prevalence of infections was higher in the non-vaccinated population than in the vaccinated one. Considering the whole follow-up time, being born outside Germany, working in a high-risk job and living area per inhabitant were identified as risk factors for infection, while other socio-demographic and health-related variables were not. Although we obtained significant within-household clustering of SARS-CoV-2 cases, no further geospatial clustering was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination increased the coverage of the Munich population presenting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but breakthrough infections contribute to community spread. As underreporting stays relevant over time, infections can go undetected, so non-pharmaceutical measures are crucial, particularly for highly contagious strains like Omicron.

Assay Harmonization Study To Measure Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines: a Serology Methods Study

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented the scientific community with an immediate need for accurate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology assays, resulting in an expansion of assay development, some without following a rigorous quality control and validation, and with a wide range of performance characteristics. Vast amounts of data have been gathered on SARS-CoV-2 antibody response; however, performance and ability to compare the results have been challenging. This study seeks to analyze the reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of a set of widely used commercial, in-house, and neutralization serology assays, as well as provide evidence for the feasibility of using the World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) as a harmonization tool. This study also seeks to demonstrate that binding immunoassays may serve as a practical alternative for the serological study of large sample sets in lieu of expensive, complex, and less reproducible neutralization assays. In this study, commercial assays demonstrated the highest specificity, while in-house assays excelled in antibody sensitivity. As expected, neutralization assays demonstrated high levels of variability but overall good correlations with binding immunoassays, suggesting that binding may be reasonably accurate as well as practical for the study of SARS-CoV-2 serology. All three assay types performed well after WHO IS standardization. The results of this study demonstrate there are high performing serology assays available to the scientific community to rigorously dissect antibody responses to infection and vaccination. IMPORTANCE Previous studies have shown significant variability in SARS-CoV-2 antibody serology assays, highlighting the need for evaluation and comparison of these assays using the same set of samples covering a wide range of antibody responses induced by infection or vaccination. This study demonstrated that there are high performing assays that can be used reliably to evaluate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in the context of infection and vaccination. This study also demonstrated the feasibility of harmonizing these assays against the International Standard and provided evidence that the binding immunoassays may have high enough correlation with the neutralization assays to serve as a practical proxy. These results represent an important step in standardizing and harmonizing the many different serological assays used to evaluate COVID-19 immune responses in the population.

Comprehensive Comparison of Seven SARS-CoV-2-Specific Surrogate Virus Neutralization and Anti-Spike IgG Antibody Assays Using a Live-Virus Neutralization Assay as a Reference

Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are considered a valuable marker for measuring humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. However, live-virus neutralization tests (NTs) require high-biosafety-level laboratories and are time-consuming. Therefore, surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been widely applied, but unlike most anti-spike (S) antibody assays, NTs and sVNTs are not harmonized, requiring further evaluation and comparative analyses. This study compared seven commercial sVNTs and anti-S-antibody assays with a live-virus NT as a reference, using a panel of 720 single and longitudinal serum samples from 666 convalescent patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of these assays for detecting antibodies ranged from 48 to 94% after PCR-confirmed infection and from 56% to 100% relative to positivity in the in-house live-virus NT. Furthermore, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine which immunoassays were most suitable for assessing nAb titers exceeding a specific cutoff (NT titer, ≥80) and found that the NeutraLISA and the cPass assays reached the highest area under the curve (AUC), exceeding 0.91. In addition, when the assays were compared for their correlation with nAb kinetics over time in a set of longitudinal samples, the extent of the measured decrease of nAbs after infection varied widely among the evaluated immunoassays. Finally, in vaccinated convalescent patients, high titers of nAbs exceeded the upper limit of the evaluated assays' quantification ranges. Based on data from this study, we conclude that commercial immunoassays are acceptable substitutes for live-virus NTs, particularly when additional adapted cutoffs are employed to detect nAbs beyond a specific threshold titer. IMPORTANCE While the measurement of neutralizing antibodies is considered a valuable tool in assessing protection against SARS-CoV-2, neutralization tests employ live-virus isolates and cell culture, requiring advanced laboratory biosafety levels. Including a large sample panel (over 700 samples), this study provides adapted cutoff values calculated for seven commercial immunoassays (including four surrogate neutralization assays and a protein-based microarray) that robustly correlate with specific titers of neutralizing antibodies.

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.

Reduced Sensitivity of Commercial Spike-Specific Antibody Assays after Primary Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is characterized by substantial changes in the antigenic structure of the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, antibodies induced by primary Omicron infection lack neutralizing activity against earlier variants. In this study, we analyzed whether these antigenic changes impact the sensitivity of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Sera from 37 unvaccinated, convalescent individuals after putative primary Omicron infection were tested with a panel of 20 commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. As controls, we used samples from 43 individuals after primary infection with the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral wild-type strain. In addition, variant-specific live-virus neutralization assays were used as a reference for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in the samples. Notably, in Omicron convalescents, there was a statistically significant reduction in the sensitivity of all antibody assays containing S or its receptor-binding-domain (RBD) as antigens. Furthermore, antibody levels quantified by these assays displayed a weaker correlation with Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers than with those against the wild type. In contrast, the sensitivity of nucleocapsid-protein-specific immunoassays was similar in wild-type and Omicron-infected subjects. In summary, the antigenic changes in the Omicron S lead to reduced immunoreactivity in the current commercial S- and RBD-specific antibody assays, impairing their diagnostic performance. IMPORTANCE This study demonstrates that the antigenic changes of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant affect test results from commercial Spike- and RBD-specific antibody assays, significantly diminishing their sensitivities and diagnostic abilities to assess neutralizing antibodies.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Tyrolean district of Schwaz at the time of the rapid mass vaccination in March 2021 following B.1.351-variant outbreak

In order to curb the rapid dissemination of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in the district of Schwaz and beyond, the EU allocated additional vaccine doses at the beginning of March 2021 to implement a rapid mass vaccination of the population (16+). The aim of our study was to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among the adult population in the district of Schwaz at the time of the implementation. Data on previous history of infections, symptoms and immunization status were collected using a structured questionnaire. Blood samples were used to determine SARS-CoV-2 specific anti-spike, anti-nucleocapsid and neutralizing antibodies. We recruited 2,474 individuals with a median age (IQR) of 42 (31-54) years. Using the official data on distribution of age and sex, we found a standardized prevalence of undocumented infections at 15.0% (95% CI: 13.2-16.7). Taken together with the officially documented infections, we estimated that 24.0% (95% CI: 22.5-25.6) of the adult population had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hence, the proportion of undocumented infections identified by our study was 55.8% (95% CI: 52.7-58.5). With a vaccination coverage of 10% among the adults population at that time, we imply that a minimum of two-thirds of the target popuation was susceptible to the circulating threat when this unique campaign started.

High SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and Rapid Neutralizing Antibody Decline among Agricultural Workers in Rural Guatemala, June 2020-March 2021

Essential agricultural workers work under occupational conditions that may increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and transmission. Data from an agricultural worker cohort in Guatemala, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N IgG) testing were used to estimate past infections and analyze risk factors associated with seropositivity at enrollment and association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The stability of neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses were assessed in a subset of participants. The adjusted relative risk (aRR) for seroprevalence at enrollment was estimated accounting for correlations within worksites. At enrollment, 616 (46.2%) of 1334 (93.2%) participants had anti-N IgG results indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. A cough ≤ 10 days prior to enrollment (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13−1.46) and working as a packer (aRR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.67−2.38) or packing manager within the plants (aRR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.36−2.43) were associated with increased risk of seropositivity. COVID-19 incidence density among seronegative workers was 2.3/100 Person-Years (P-Y), higher than seropositive workers (0.4/100 P-Y). Most workers with follow-up NAb testing (65/77, 84%) exhibited a 95% average decrease in NAb titers in <6 months. While participants seropositive at baseline were less likely to experience a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up, NAb titers rapidly waned, underscoring the need for multipronged COVID-19 prevention strategies in the workplace, including vaccination.

The Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) for COVID-19: Depth and Breadth of Serology Assays and Plans for Assay Harmonization

In October 2020, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) was established to study the immune response to COVID-19, and “to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies” (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/covid-19/coronavirus-research-initiatives/serological-sciences-network). SeroNet is comprised of 25 participating research institutions partnering with the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and the SeroNet Coordinating Center. Since its inception, SeroNet has supported collaborative development and sharing of COVID-19 serological assay procedures and has set forth plans for assay harmonization. To facilitate collaboration and procedure sharing, a detailed survey was sent to collate comprehensive assay details and performance metrics on COVID-19 serological assays within SeroNet. In addition, FNLCR established a protocol to calibrate SeroNet serological assays to reference standards, such as the U.S. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology standard reference material and first WHO international standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (20/136), to facilitate harmonization of assay reporting units and cross-comparison of study data. SeroNet institutions reported development of a total of 27 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods, 13 multiplex assays, and 9 neutralization assays and use of 12 different commercial serological methods. FNLCR developed a standardized protocol for SeroNet institutions to calibrate these diverse serological assays to reference standards. In conclusion, SeroNet institutions have established a diverse array of COVID-19 serological assays to study the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. Calibration of SeroNet serological assays to harmonize results reporting will facilitate future pooled data analyses and study cross-comparisons.

IMPORTANCE SeroNet institutions have developed or implemented 61 diverse COVID-19 serological assays and are collaboratively working to harmonize these assays using reference materials to establish standardized reporting units. This will facilitate clinical interpretation of serology results and cross-comparison of research data.

The Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) for COVID-19: Depth and Breadth of Serology Assays and Plans for Assay Harmonization

Background

In October 2020, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) was established to study the immune response to COVID-19, and "to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies." SeroNet is comprised of 25 participating research institutions partnering with the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and the SeroNet Coordinating Center. Since its inception, SeroNet has supported collaborative development and sharing of COVID-19 serological assay procedures and has set forth plans for assay harmonization.

Methods

To facilitate collaboration and procedure sharing, a detailed survey was sent to collate comprehensive assay details and performance metrics on COVID-19 serological assays within SeroNet. In addition, FNLCR established a protocol to calibrate SeroNet serological assays to reference standards, such as the U.S. SARS-CoV-2 serology standard reference material and First WHO International Standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (20/136), to facilitate harmonization of assay reporting units and cross-comparison of study data.

Results

SeroNet institutions reported development of a total of 27 ELISA methods, 13 multiplex assays, 9 neutralization assays, and use of 12 different commercial serological methods. FNLCR developed a standardized protocol for SeroNet institutions to calibrate these diverse serological assays to reference standards.

Conclusions

SeroNet institutions have established a diverse array of COVID-19 serological assays to study the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 virus and vaccines. Calibration of SeroNet serological assays to harmonize results reporting will facilitate future pooled data analyses and study cross-comparisons.

Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay: An Adaptable Methodology to Study SARS-CoV-2 Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses

The Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay is a versatile technique, which can be used for several applications. It has enormously contributed to the study of infectious diseases. This review highlights how this methodology supported the science conducted in COVID-19 pandemics, allowing scientists to better understand the immune response against SARS-CoV-2. ELISA can be modified to assess the functionality of antibodies, as avidity and neutralization, respectively by the standardization of avidity-ELISA and surrogate-neutralization methods. Cellular immunity can also be studied using this assay. Products secreted by cells, like proteins and cytokines, can be studied by ELISA or its derivative Enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assay. ELISA and ELISA-based methods aided the area of immunology against infectious diseases and is still relevant, for example, as a promising approach to study the differences between natural and vaccine-induced immune responses against SARS-CoV-2.

Comparative longitudinal variation of total IgG and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in recipients of BNT162b2 vaccination

Objectives

This article aims to summarize the 6-month variation of a vast array of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in recipients of BNT162b2 mRNA-based vaccination.

Methods

The study population consisted of 84 baseline SARS-CoV-2 seronegative healthcare employees (median age 45 years, 53.6% females), receiving mRNA-based BNT162b2 primary vaccination cycle. Blood was collected before the first and second BNT162b2 vaccine doses, as well as 1, 3 and 6 months afterwards. The serum titers of the following anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were assayed: total anti-RBD (receptor binding domain), anti-spike trimeric IgG, anti-RBD IgG and anti-spike S1 IgA.

Results

All antibodies' levels peaked 1 month after vaccination, but then displayed a considerable decrease. The median rates of 6-month decline were -95% for IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD, -85% for IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike, -73% for IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 and -56% for total anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibodies, respectively. The median time of seronegativization was estimated at 579 days for total anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibodies, 271 days for IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike, 264 days for IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD and 208 days for IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1, respectively. The rate of seropositive subjects declined from 98-100% at the peak to 50-100% after 6 months. The inter-individual variation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies reduction at 6 months was 3-44% from the peak.

Conclusions

The results of this longitudinal serosurvey demonstrate that the titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies declined 6 months after BNT162b2 vaccination, with median time of IgG/IgA seronegativization estimated between 7 and 9 months, thus supporting the opportunity of administering vaccine boosters approximately 5 to 6 months after the last dose of the primary vaccination cycle.

Evaluation of Two Rapid Lateral Flow Tests and Two Surrogate ELISAs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Specific Neutralizing Antibodies

As vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 progresses rapidly around the world, reliable detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies (NAb) has become an indispensable component of serological diagnostics. We evaluated the performance of four commercially available tests, i.e. two lateral flow assays (Coris BioConcept COVID-19 Sero NP/RBD and Concile InfectCheck COVID-19 NAb) and two surrogate ELISA (sELISA) tests (EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 NeutraLISA and AdipoGen SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies Detection Kit) in comparison with an in-house SARS-CoV-2 micro neutralization test as reference. A total of 334 sera were tested, including 30 samples collected prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, 128 sera from convalescent patients as well as 176 sera from partially or fully vaccinated individuals. The overall sensitivity of LFAs differed and was 71.6% for the Coris and 98.4% for the Concile. In contrast, overall sensitivity of the NeutraLISA was 86 and 98% for the AdipoGen. All test showed the highest sensitivity when testing samples from fully vaccinated individuals with both sELISA achieving 100% sensitivity. Overall specificity was 89.3% for the Coris and only 58.3% for the Concile. Similarly, significant differences were observed for both sELISA, with an overall specificity of 82.1% for the NeutraLISA and only 54.8% for the AdipoGen. All tests showed a 100% specificity when testing negative control samples while specificities were lowest when testing samples from only partially vaccinated individuals.

Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.

Evaluation of Three Quantitative Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Immunoassays

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 and caused a dramatic pandemic. Serological assays are used to check for immunization and assess herd immunity. We evaluated commercially available assays designed to quantify antibodies directed to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) antigen, either total (Wantaï SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA) or IgG (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant on Alinity, Abbott, and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, Diasorin). The specificities of the Wantaï, Alinity, and Liaison assays were evaluated using 100 prepandemic sera and were 98, 99, and 97%, respectively. The sensitivities of all three were around 100% when tested on 35 samples taken 15 to 35 days postinfection. They were less sensitive for 150 sera from late infections (>180 days). Using the first WHO international standard (NIBSC), we showed that the Wantai results were concordant with the NIBSC values, while Liaison and Alinity showed a proportional bias of 1.3 and 7, respectively. The results of the 3 immunoassays were significantly globally pairwise correlated and for late infection sera (P < 0.001). They were correlated for recent infection sera measured with Alinity and Liaison (P < 0.001). However, the Wantai results of recent infections were not correlated with those from Alinity or Liaison. All the immunoassay results were significantly correlated with the neutralizing antibody titers obtained using a live virus neutralization assay with the B1.160 SARS-CoV-2 strain. These assays will be useful once the protective anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer has been determined.

IMPORTANCE Standardization and correlation with virus neutralization assays are critical points to compare the performance of serological assays designed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in order to identify their optimal use. We have evaluated three serological immunoassays based on the virus spike antigen that detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a microplate assay and two chemiluminescent assays performed with Alinity (Abbott) and Liaison (Diasorin) analysers. We used an in-house live virus neutralization assay and the first WHO international standard to assess the comparison. This study could be useful to determine guidelines on the use of serological results to manage vaccination and treatment with convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibodies.