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

Longitudinal Assessment of BNT162b2- and mRNA-1273-Induced Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG Levels and Avidity Following Three Doses of Vaccination

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination-induced protection against infection is likely to be affected by functional antibody features. To understand the kinetics of antibody responses in healthy individuals after primary series and third vaccine doses, sera from the recipients of the two licensed SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were assessed for circulating anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG levels and avidity for up to 6 months post-primary series and 9 months after the third dose. Following primary series vaccination, anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG levels declined from months 1 to 6, while avidity increased through month 6, irrespective of the vaccine received. The third dose of either vaccine increased anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG levels and avidity and appeared to enhance antibody level persistence-generating a slower rate of decline in the 3 months following the third dose compared to the decline seen after the primary series alone. The third dose of both vaccines induced significant avidity increases 1 month after vaccination compared to the avidity response 6 months post-primary series vaccination (p ≤ 0.001). A significant difference in avidity responses between the two vaccines was observed 6 months post-third dose, where the BNT162b2 recipients had higher antibody avidity levels compared to the mRNA-1273 recipients (p = 0.020).

Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein-Based Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Assay Performance in the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study: Characteristics of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations with Health Disparities

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on Black, Hispanic, and other underserved, disadvantaged populations. Here anti-SARS-CoV-2 tests are characterized in disadvantaged patients to examine equivalence in US populations.

METHODS

Underserved participant adults (age > 18 years) were enrolled before the availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Federal Qualified Health Centers in California, Florida, Louisiana, Illinois, and Ohio and contributed samples to the Minority and Rural Coronavirus Insights Study (MRCIS). A subset coined the MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort of 2365 participants was tested with the Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Cobas e601). Five hundred ninety-five of these were also tested with the Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (VITROS-5600); 1770 were also tested with the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (ARCHITECT-2000). Assay-specific cutoffs classified negative/positive results.

RESULTS

Eight point four percent (199/2365) of the MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort was SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive at enrollment. Agreement between the Ortho/Roche and the Abbott/Roche antibody testing did not vary by enrollment RNA status. The Ortho (anti-spike protein) vs Roche (anti-nucleocapsid protein) comparison agreed substantially: kappa = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57-0.69); overall agreement, 83%. However, agreement was even better for the Abbott vs Roche assays (both anti-nucleocapsid protein tests): kappa = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87); overall agreement, 95%. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 comparisons stratified by demographic criteria demonstrated no significant variability in agreement by sex, race/ethnicity, or age.

CONCLUSIONS

Analytical agreement is 96.4% for anti-spike-protein vs anti-nucleocapsid-protein comparisons. Physiologically, seroreversion of anti-nucleocapsid reactivity after infection occurred in the disadvantaged population similarly to general populations. No anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays included demonstrated a clinically significant difference due to the demographics of the disadvantaged MRCIS SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Cohort.

Outpatient COVID-19 convalescent plasma recipient antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations within a randomized trial

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined.METHODSThis secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.RESULTSSARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONIn unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors' antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460.FUNDINGDepartment of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

The importance of using WHO International Standards to harmonise SARS-CoV-2 serological assays

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid development of tests to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection and ascertain the prevalence of infection, along with the formulation of various treatments and vaccines. Globally, over 220 anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological assays have been developed for laboratory use, and many of these assays are currently used to assess immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. However, because these assays were independently developed by different manufacturers with different target antigens, immunoglobulin detection, technologies, and data reporting approaches, the results are not directly comparable, making it challenging to draw conclusions regarding immune responses at the population level. With deficiencies in assay validation, standardisation, and harmonisation, the inability to use and compare large datasets is becoming a major issue as serological data continue to increase. To help in addressing this issue, WHO established the first International Standard for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin in late 2020. In this Personal View, we define the WHO International Standard for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin, summarise the uses of primary versus secondary serology standards, recommend the use of such standards for data harmonisation, and list guidance and resources for using serology standards to improve data comparability.

Performance Evaluation of Three Antibody Binding Assays, a Neutralizing Antibody Assay, and an Interferon-Gamma Release Assay for SARS-CoV-2 According to Vaccine Type in Vaccinated Group

We evaluated the performance of SARS-CoV-2 assays in the vaccinated group using receptor-binding domain antibody assays (RBD Ab assay), neutralizing antibody assay (nAb assay), and interferon-gamma release assay (IGR assay). We also compared the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 assays based on vaccine type in a large population. We collected 1851 samples from vaccinated individuals with vector, mix-and-match (MM), and mRNA vaccines. The performance of the RBD Ab assays was assessed by SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott Laboratories, Sligo, Ireland), SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman Coulter, CA, USA), and anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). The nAb assay was assessed by cPass SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibody detection kits (GenScript, NJ, USA). The IGR assay was assessed by QuantiFERON (Qiagen, Venlo, The Netherlands). Median values of the RBD Ab assays and nAb assay sequentially increased after the first and second vaccinations. RBD Ab assays and nAb assay showed very strong correlations. The median values of the RBD Ab, nAb, and IGR were higher in the mRNA vaccine group than in the vector and MM vaccine groups. The agreement and correlation among the RBD Ab assays, nAb assay, and IGR assay were higher in the mRNA vaccine group than in the vector and MM vaccine groups. We compared the performance of the RBD Ab assay, nAb assay, and IGR assay based on the vaccine types using the RBD Ab, nAb, and IGR assays. This study provides a better understanding of the assessment of humoral and cellular immune responses after vaccination.

Vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibody response: the comparability of S1-specific binding assays depends on epitope and isotype discrimination

Background

Quantification of the SARS-CoV-2-specific immune response by serological immunoassays is critical for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, neutralizing antibody titers to the viral spike (S) protein have been proposed as a correlate of protection (CoP). The WHO established the First International Standard (WHO IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (Ig) (NIBSC 20/136) to harmonize binding assays with the same antigen specificity by assigning the same unitage in binding antibody units (BAU)/ml.

Method

In this study, we analyzed the S1-specific antibody response in a cohort of healthcare workers in Germany (n = 76) during a three-dose vaccination course over 8.5 months. Subjects received either heterologous or homologous prime-boost vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or three doses of BNT162b2. Antibodies were quantified using three anti-S1 binding assays (ELISA, ECLIA, and PETIA) harmonized to the WHO IS. Serum levels of neutralizing antibodies were determined using a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Binding assays were compared using Spearman's rank correlation and Passing-Bablok regression.

Findings

All assays showed good correlation and similar antibody kinetics correlating with neutralizing potential. However, the assays show large proportional differences in BAU/ml. ECLIA and PETIA, which detect total antibodies against the receptor- binding domain (RBD) within the S1 subunit, interact similarly with the convalescent plasma-derived WHO IS but differently with vaccine serum, indicating a high sensitivity to the IgG/IgM/IgA ratio.

Conclusion

All three binding assays allow monitoring of the antibody response in COVID-19-vaccinated individuals. However, the assay-specific differences hinder the definition of a common protective threshold in BAU/ml. Our results highlight the need for the thoughtful use of conversion factors and consideration of method-specific differences. To improve the management of future pandemics and harmonize total antibody assays, we should strive for reference material with a well-characterized Ig isotype composition.