Practical guidance for clinical laboratories for SARS-CoV-2 serology testing

Obesity does not influence SARS-CoV-2 humoral vaccine immunogenicity

Obesity is a recognized factor influencing immune function and infectious disease outcomes. Characterization of the influence of obesity on SARS-CoV-2 humoral vaccine immunogenicity is required to properly tailor vaccine type (mRNA, viral-vector, protein subunit vaccines) and dosing schedule. Data from a prospective cohort study collected over 34 months was used to evaluate the slope of antibody production and decay and neutralizing capacity following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals with and without obesity at baseline. Most participants were female (65.4%), white (92.4%), and received mRNA vaccines. 210 were obese and 697 non-obese. Sex and infection-acquired immunity were identified as effect modifiers for the relationship between obesity and COVID-19 vaccine humoral immunogenicity. No consistent influence of obesity on peak titres, titre retention, antibody isotype (IgG, IgM, IgA), or neutralization was identified when controlling for other key variables. It may not be necessary to consider this variable when developing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dosing strategies.

Serological markers and long COVID-A rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

Long COVID is highly heterogeneous, often debilitating, and may last for years after infection. The aetiology of long COVID remains uncertain. Examination of potential serological markers of long COVID, accounting for clinical covariates, may yield emergent pathophysiological insights.

METHODS

In adherence to PRISMA guidelines, we carried out a rapid review of the literature. We searched Medline and Embase for primary observational studies that compared IgG response in individuals who experienced COVID-19 symptoms persisting ≥12 weeks post-infection with those who did not. We examined relationships between serological markers and long COVID status and investigated sources of inter-study variability, such as severity of acute illness, long COVID symptoms assessed and target antigen(s).

RESULTS

Of 8018 unique records, we identified 29 as being eligible for inclusion in synthesis. Definitions of long COVID varied. In studies that reported anti-nucleocapsid (N) IgG (n = 10 studies; n = 989 participants in aggregate), full or partial anti-Spike IgG (i.e. the whole trimer, S1 or S2 subgroups, or receptor binding domain, n = 19 studies; n = 2606 participants), or neutralizing response (n = 7 studies; n = 1123 participants), we did not find strong evidence to support any difference in serological markers between groups with and without persisting symptoms. However, most studies did not account for severity or level of care required during acute illness, and other potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooling of studies would enable more robust exploration of clinical and serological predictors among diverse populations. However, substantial inter-study variations hamper comparability. Standardized reporting practices would improve the quality, consistency and comprehension of study findings.

Risk of hospital admission and death from first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection by age group during the Delta and Omicron periods in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Population-based cross-sectional serosurveys within the Lower Mainland, British Columbia, Canada, showed about 10%, 40% and 60% of residents were infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the sixth (September 2021), seventh (March 2022) and eighth (July 2022) serosurveys. We conducted the ninth (December 2022) and tenth (July 2023) serosurveys and sought to assess risk of severe outcomes from a first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection during intersurvey periods.

METHODS

Using increments in cumulative infection-induced seroprevalence, population census, discharge abstract and vital statistics data sets, we estimated infection hospitalization and fatality ratios (IHRs and IFRs) by age and sex for the sixth to seventh (Delta/Omicron-BA.1), seventh to eighth (Omicron-BA.2/BA.5) and eighth to ninth (Omicron-BA.5/BQ.1) intersurvey periods. As derived, IHR and IFR estimates represent the risk of severe outcome from a first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection acquired during the specified intersurvey period.

RESULTS

The cumulative infection-induced seroprevalence was 74% by December 2022 and 79% by July 2023, exceeding 80% among adults younger than 50 years but remaining less than 60% among those aged 80 years and older. Period-specific IHR and IFR estimates were consistently less than 0.3% and 0.1% overall. By age group, IHR and IFR estimates were less than 1.0% and up to 0.1%, respectively, except among adults aged 70-79 years during the sixth to seventh intersurvey period (IHR 3.3% and IFR 1.0%) and among those aged 80 years and older during all periods (IHR 4.7%, 2.2% and 3.5%; IFR 3.3%, 0.6% and 1.3% during the sixth to seventh, seventh to eighth and eighth to ninth periods, respectively). The risk of severe outcome followed a J-shaped age pattern. During the eighth to ninth period, we estimated about 1 hospital admission for COVID-19 per 300 newly infected children younger than 5 years versus about 1 per 30 newly infected adults aged 80 years and older, with no deaths from COVID-19 among children but about 1 death per 80 newly infected adults aged 80 years and older during that period.

INTERPRETATION

By July 2023, we estimated about 80% of residents in the Lower Mainland, BC, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 overall, with low risk of hospital admission or death; about 40% of the oldest adults, however, remained uninfected and at highest risk of a severe outcome. First infections among older adults may still contribute substantial burden from COVID-19, reinforcing the need to continue to prioritize this age group for vaccination and to consider them in health care system planning.

COVID-19 and Laboratory Markers from Romanian Patients-A Narrative Review

COVID-19 has significantly impacted the whole world, and Romania was no exception. Biomarkers play a crucial role in understanding and managing the disease. However, research regarding laboratory analyses for patients with COVID-19 is fairly limited. For detection, PCR testing is still considered the golden standard, while antibodies are still useful for monitoring both patients and their vaccination status. In our country, biomarkers such as CRP, LDH, transaminases, cardiac, and iron markers have been used to assess the status of patients and even predict illness outcome. CRP, IL-6, LDH, FER, fibrinogen, creatinine, and vitamin D levels have been associated with increased severity, risk of ICU admission, and death. Cardiac markers and D-dimers are also good predictors, but their role seems more important in patients with complications. HDL cholesterol and BUN levels were also suggested as potential biomarkers. Hematological issues in SARS-CoV-2 infections include neutrophilia, lymphopenia and their ratio, while PCT, which is a marker of bacterial infections, is better to be used in patients with co- or supra-infections. The current research is a narrative review that focuses on the laboratory results of Romanian COVID-19 patients. The goal of this article is to provide an update on the research on biomarkers and other laboratory tests conducted inside the borders of Romania and identify gaps in this regard. Secondly, options for further research are discussed and encouraged.

SARS-CoV-2 Serology: Utility and Limits of Different Antigen-Based Tests through the Evaluation and the Comparison of Four Commercial Tests

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 serology have several indications. Currently, as there are various types available, it is important to master their performance in order to choose the best test for the indication. We evaluated and compared four different commercial serology tests, three of them had the Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization (FDA-EUA). Our goal was to provide new data to help guide the interpretation and the choice of the serological tests. Methods: Four commercial tests were studied: Elecsys® Roche® on Cobas® (total anti-nucleocapsid (N) antibodies), VIDAS® Biomerieux® (IgM and IgG anti- receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies), Mindray® (IgM and IgG anti-N and anti-RBD antibodies) and Access® Beckman Coulter® (IgG anti-RBD antibodies). Two panels were tested: a positive panel (n = 72 sera) obtained from COVID-19-confirmed patients with no vaccination history and a negative panel (n = 119) of pre-pandemic sera. The analytical performances were evaluated and the ROC curve was drawn to assess the manufacturer’s cut-off for each test. Results: A large range of variability between the tests was found. The Mindray®IgG and Cobas® tests showed the best overall sensitivity, which was equal to 79.2% CI 95% (67.9−87.8). The Cobas® test showed the best sensitivity after 14 days of COVID-19 molecular confirmation; which was equal to 85.4% CI 95% (72.2−93.9). The Access® test had a lower sensitivity, even after day 14 (55.5% CI 95% (43.4−67.3)). The best specificity was noted for the Cobas®, VIDAS®IgG and Access® IgG tests (100% CI 95% (96.9−100)). The IgM tests, VIDAS®IgM and Mindray®IgM, showed the lowest specificity and sensitivity rates. Overall, only 43 out of 72 sera (59.7%) showed concordant results by all tests. Retained cut-offs for a significantly better sensitivity and accuracy, without significant change in the specificity, were: 0.87 for Vidas®IgM (p = 0.01) and 0.14 for Access® (p < 10−4). The combination of Cobas® with Vidas® IgM and IgG offered the best accuracy in comparison with all other tests combinations. Conclusion: Although using an FDA-EUA approved serology test, each laboratory should carry out its own evaluation. Tests variability may raise some concerns that seroprevalence studies may vary significantly based on the used serology test.

Evaluation of the performance of multiple immunoassay diagnostic platforms on the National Microbiology Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 National Serology Panel

BACKGROUND

Serological assays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are being used in serological surveys and other specialized applications. As a result, and to ensure that the outcomes of serological testing meet high quality standards, evaluations are required to assess the performance of these assays and the proficiency of laboratories performing them.

METHODS

A panel of 60 plasma/serum samples from blood donors who had reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 21 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples were secured and distributed to interested laboratories within Canada (n = 30) and the United States (n = 1). Participating laboratories were asked to provide details on the diagnostic assays used, the platforms the assays were performed on, and the results obtained for each panel sample. Laboratories were blinded with respect to the expected outcomes.

RESULTS

The performance of the different assays evaluated was excellent, with the high-throughput platforms of Roche, Ortho, and Siemens demonstrating 100% sensitivity. Most other high-throughput platforms had sensitivities of >93%, with the exception of the IgG assay using the Abbott ARCHITECT which had an average sensitivity of only 87%. The majority of the high-throughput platforms also demonstrated very good specificities (>97%).

CONCLUSION

This proficiency study demonstrates that most of the SARS-CoV-2 serological assays utilized by provincial public health or hospital laboratories in Canada have acceptable sensitivity and excellent specificity.

Seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2 in Alberta, Canada in a post-vaccination period (March 2021-July 2021)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the need to rapidly make public health decisions. We systematically evaluated SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity to understand local COVID-19 epidemiology and support evidence-based public health decision making.

METHODS

Residual blood samples were collected for SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG testing over a 1-5 day period monthly from 26 February 2021-9 July 2021 from six clinical laboratories across the province of Alberta, Canada. Monthly crude and adjusted (for age and gender) seropositivity were calculated. Results were linked to provincial administrative, laboratory, and vaccine databases.

RESULTS

60,632 individual blood samples were tested. Vaccination data were available for 98.8% of samples. Adjusted RBD IgG positivity rose from 11.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.9-12.0%) in March 2021 to 70.2% (95% CI 70.2-70.3%) in July 2021 (p < .0001). Seropositivity rose from 9.4% (95% CI 9.3-9.4%) in March 2021 to 20.2% (95% CI 20.1-20.2%) in July 2021 in unvaccinated Albertans. Unvaccinated seropositive individuals were from geographic areas with significantly (p < .001) lower median household income, lower proportion of married/common-law relationships, larger average household size and higher proportions of visible minorities compared to seronegative unvaccinated individuals. In July 2021, the age groups with the lowest and highest seropositivity in unvaccinated Albertans were those ≥80 years (12.0%, 95% CI 5.3-18.6%) and 20-29 years (24.2%, 95% CI 19.6-28.8%), respectively. Of seropositive unvaccinated individuals, 50.2% (95% CI 45.9-54.5%) had no record of prior SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity with data linkage is valuable for decision-making during the pandemic.

Surrogate test performance for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) for convalescent plasma (CCP): How useful could they be?

Background

COVID‐19 high‐titer CCP selection is a concern, because neutralizing antibody (nAb) testing requires sophisticated labs and methods. Surrogate tests are an alternative for measuring nAb levels in plasma bags, including those that are pathogen‐reduced.

Study design/methods

We studied a panel consisting of 191 samples from convalescent donors tested by nAb (CPE‐VNT), obtained from 180 CCP donations (collection: March 20–January 21) and 11 negative controls, with a total of 80 and 111 serum and plasma samples (71 amotosalen/UV treated), with nAb titers ranging from negative to 10,240. Samples were blindly tested for several surrogates: one anti‐RBD, two anti‐spike, and four anti‐nucleocapsid tests, either isolated or combined to improve their positive predictive values as predictors of the presence of high‐titer nAbs, defined as those with titers ≥160.

Results

Except for combined and anti‐IgA/M tests, all isolated surrogate tests showed excellent performance for nAb detection: sensitivity (98.3%–100%), specificity (85.7%–100%), PPV (98.9%–100%), NPV (81.3%–100%), and AUC (0.93–0.96), with a variable decrease in sensitivity and considerably lower specificity when using FDA authorization and concomitant nAb titers ≥160. All surrogates had AUCs that were statistically different from CPE‐VNT if nAb≥160, including when using combined, orthogonal approaches.

Conclusions

Surrogate tests (isolated or in combination) have an indirect good performance in detecting the presence of nAb, with lower sensitivity and specificity when high nAb titer samples are used, possibly accepting a considerable number of donors whose nAb titers are actually low, which should be evaluated by each laboratory responsible for CCP collection.

Pre-Vaccine Positivity of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Alberta, Canada during the First Two Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic

We systematically evaluated SARS-CoV-2 IgG positivity in a provincial cohort to understand the local epidemiology of COVID-19 and support evidence-based public health decisions. Residual blood samples were collected for serology testing over 5-day periods monthly from June 2020 to January 2021 from six clinical laboratories across the province of Alberta, Canada. A total of 93,993 individual patient samples were tested with a SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody assay with positives confirmed using a spike antibody assay. Population-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity was 0.92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 0.93%) shortly after the first COVID-19 wave in June 2020, increasing to 4.63% (95% CI: 4.61 to 4.65%) amid the second wave in January 2021. There was no significant difference in seropositivity between males and females (1.39% versus 1.27%; P = 0.11). Ages with highest seropositivity were 0 to 9 years (2.71%, 95% CI: 1.64 to 3.78%) followed by 20 to 29 years (1.58%, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.04%), with the lowest rates seen in those aged 70 to 79 (0.79%, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.93%) and >80 (0.78%, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.97%). Compared to the seronegative group, seropositive patients inhabited geographic areas with lower household income ($87,500 versus $97,500; P < 0.001), larger household sizes, and higher proportions of people with education levels of secondary school or lower, as well as immigrants and visible minority groups (all P < 0.05). A total of 53.7% of seropositive individuals were potentially undetected cases with no prior positive COVID-19 nucleic acid test (NAAT). Antibodies were detectable in some patients up to 9 months post positive NAAT result. This seroprevalence study will continue to inform public health decisions by identifying at-risk demographics and geographical areas. IMPORTANCE Using SARS-CoV-2 serology testing, we assessed the proportion of people in Alberta, Canada (population 4.4 million) positive for COVID-19 antibodies, indicating previous infection, during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic (prior to vaccination programs). Linking these results with sociodemographic population data provides valuable information as to which groups of the population are more likely to have been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to help facilitate public health decision-making and interventions. We also compared seropositivity data with previous COVID-19 molecular testing results. Absence of antibody and molecular testing were highly correlated (95% negative concordance). Positive antibody correlation with a previous positive molecular test was low, suggesting the possibility of mild/asymptomatic infection or other reasons leading individuals from seeking medical attention. Our data highlight that the true estimate of population prevalence of COVID-19 is likely best informed by combining data from both serology and molecular testing.

Antibody Responses to Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection or after COVID-19 Vaccination

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is the causative agent of the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The clinical severity of COVID-19 ranges from asymptomatic to critical disease and, eventually, death in smaller subsets of patients. The first case of COVID-19 was declared at the end of 2019 and it has since spread worldwide and remained a challenge in 2021, with the emergence of variants of concern. In fact, new concerns were the still unclear situation of SARS-CoV-2 immunity during the ongoing pandemic and progress with vaccination. If maintained at sufficiently high levels, the immune response could effectively block reinfection, which might confer long-lived protection. Understanding the protective capacity and the duration of humoral immunity during SARS-CoV-2 infection or after vaccination is critical for managing the pandemic and would also provide more evidence about the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, the exact features of antibody responses that govern SARS-CoV-2 infection or after vaccination remain unclear. This review summarizes the main knowledge that we have about the humoral immune response during COVID-19 disease or after vaccination. Such knowledge should help to optimize vaccination strategies and public health decisions.