Evaluation of commercial and automated SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA ELISAs using coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patient samples

Potential Usefulness of IgA for the Early Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Comparison With IgM

Serological testing can be a powerful complementary approach to achieve timely diagnosis of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, along with nucleic acid detection. Immunoglobulin (Ig) A antibodies are less frequently utilized to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection than IgM and IgG antibodies, even though IgA antibodies play an important role in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. This review discusses the differences in kinetics and assay performance between IgA and IgM antibodies and the factors influencing antibody responses. It highlights the potential usefulness of analyzing IgA antibodies for the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The early appearance of IgA and the high sensitivity of IgA-based immunoassays can aid in diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019. However, because of cross-reactivity, it is important to recognize the only moderate specificity of the early detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies against spike antigens. Either the analysis of antibodies targeting the nucleocapsid antigen or a combination of antibodies against the nucleocapsid and spike antigens may strengthen the accuracy of serological evaluation.

Detection methods and dynamic characteristics of specific antibodies in patients with COVID-19: A review of the early literature

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused a global pandemic. Early and accurate diagnosis and quarantine remain the most effective mitigation strategy. Although reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is the gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis, recent studies suggest that nucleic acids were undetectable in a significant number of cases with clinical features of COVID-19.Serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 play a role in diagnosis of COVID-19, in understanding viral epidemiology and screening convalescent sera for therapeutic and prophylactic purposes, to better understand the immune response to the virus, and to assess the degree and duration of the response of specific antibodies. In this article, we retrieved PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WEB OF SCI databases for articles and reviews published before December 1, 2022. Using "IgM, IgG,IgA, neutralizing antibody, specific antibody,COVID-19, dynamic characteristics" as keywords, and comprehensively reviewed on their basis.According to the authors' criteria, only articles deemed relevant were included, covering original articles, case series, experimental studies, reviews, and case reports. Articles on performance evaluation, opinion pieces, and technical issues were excluded. From the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, the median time of seroconversion was 11 days for immunoglobulin A (IgA), the median time of peak antibody titer was 23 (16-30 days) for IgA.Immunoglobulin M (IgM) is detected prior to immunoglobulin G (IgG), peaking 2-5 weeks post symptom onset and detectable for a minimum of 8 weeks in the immunocompetent.Neutralizing antibodies were earliest detectable within 6-7 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in clinically mild disease. Different clinical types of patients showed different antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2, with severe COVID-19 patients > non-severe COVID-19 patients > asymptomatic infected persons, but no difference in the early stage of the disease. Usually, IgM and IgA antibodies are detectable earlier than IgG antibodies.IgA antibodys plays an important role in local mucosal immunity.Detection of IgM antibodies tends to indicate recent exposure to SARS-CoV-2, whereas the detection of COVID-19 IgG antibodies indicates virus exposure some time ago. The detection of potent neutralizing antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines.With the emergence of immune escape variants of SARS-CoV-2, humoral immunity is being challenged, and a detailed understanding of Specific antibodies is critical to guide vaccine design strategies and antibody-mediated therapies.

Performance estimation of two in-house ELISA assays for COVID-19 surveillance through the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulin isotypes

The main objective of this study was to estimate the performance, under local epidemiological conditions, of two in-house ELISA assays for the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulins. A total of 94 serum samples were used for the assessment, where 44 corresponded to sera collected before the pandemic (free of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies), and 50 sera were collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the main public hospital in the city of Valdivia, southern Chile. The Nucleocapsid (Np) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) proteins were separately used as antigens (Np and RBD ELISA, respectively) to assess their diagnostic performance. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to estimate the optical density (OD) cut-off that maximized the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the ELISA assays. Np ELISA had a mean Se of 94% (95% CI = 83.5-98.8%) and a mean Sp of 100% (95% CI = 92.0-100%), with an OD 450 nm positive cut-off value of 0.88. On the other hand, RBD ELISA presented a mean Se of 96% (95% CI = 86.3-99.5%) and a mean Sp of 90% (95% CI = 78.3-97.5%), with an OD 450 nm positive cut off value of 0.996. Non-significant differences were observed between the Se distributions of Np and RBD ELISAs, but the latter presented a significant lower Sp than Np ELISA. In parallel, collected sera were also analyzed using a commercial lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay (LFCI), to compare the performance of the in-house ELISA assays against a commercial test. The LFCI had a mean sensitivity of 94% (95% CI = 87.4-100%) and a mean specificity of 100% (95% CI = 100-100%). When compared to Np ELISA, non-significant differences were observed on the performance distributions. Conversely, RBD ELISA had a significant lower Sp than the LFCI. Although, Np ELISA presented a similar performance to the commercial test, this was 2.5 times cheaper than the LFCI assay (labor cost not considered). Thus, the in-house Np ELISA could be a suitable alternative tool, in resource limited environments, for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting further epidemiological studies.

Reliability of antibody tests for COVID-19 diagnosis

Objective: The reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and antibody tests are useful as supplemental tools for diagnosis, for measuring the population’s immunity levels, and for checking infection in asymptomatic contacts. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of five commercial antibody detection test kits. Materials and Methods: The reliability of the Colloidal Gold COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Kit, Antibody Rapid Test Hotgen, Beijing Hotgen Biotech Co., Ltd., China), Abbott Chemiluminescent Microparticle Immunoassay (Illinois, USA), Roche Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland), Siemens Chemiluminescence (Munich, Germany), and Euroimmun ELISA (Lübeck, Germany) for COVID-19 diagnosis was studied. The antibody-negative group included 50 sera from 2018, and the antibody-positive group included 98 patients with positive RT-PCR results from whom blood samples had been collected 3–9 weeks after hospital discharge. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The antibody tests’ validity and intra-assay reproducibility were examined, and the Cohen’s kappa coefficients were obtained. The disease prevalence was pegged at 10%. Results: The antibody tests’ sensitivity (69.12–72.46%) and positive predictive values (42.44–100.0%) were low, and their specificity (89.58–100%) and negative predictive values (96.31–97.03%) were high. Their accuracy rates varied from 87.54% to 97.25%, and their intra-assay coefficients of variation varied from 1% to 10%. Conclusion: The agreement between the results of the antibody detection test kits was higher when the kits were classified according to the targeted antigens. The time of blood sample collection, targeted antigens, and antibody types affected the results. Serological tests were found to be useful, and the commercial kits were found to be largely reliable, although, some parameters need to be improved.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection antibody responses

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread rapidly throughout the world, causing severe morbidity and mortality. Since the first reports of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019, research on the characteristics of specific humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 has made great progress. However, our knowledge of persistent humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited. The existence of protective immunity after infection will affect future transmission and disease severity. Therefore, it is important to gather knowledge about the kinetics of antibody responses. In this review, we summarize the information obtained so far on the characteristics and kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 infection of specific humoral immune response, especially in neutralizing antibodies and their relationship with disease severity. In addition, with the emergence of variants of concern, we summarize the neutralizing effect of specific humoral immunity on variants of concern after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Different performance of three point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection devices in symptomatic patients and close asymptomatic contacts: a real-life study

OBJECTIVES

PCR on nasopharyngeal exudates, the cornerstone of the detection of SARS-CoV-2, is time-consuming and commonly unavailable at primary health care centres. Detection of viral nucleocapsid antigens using lateral flow point-of-care tests is helpful for the early triage of patients who attend health care facilities.

METHODS

This was a prospective study carried out in clinically suspected cases and close asymptomatic contacts who attended a primary care centre (Madrid, Spain) for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Patients were divided into three 300-patient cohorts (n = 200 symptomatic cases and n = 100 close asymptomatic contacts per cohort). Three antigen detection tests (SGTI-Flex COVID-19 Ag, Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device, and GSD NovaGen SARS-CoV-2 Ag Rapid Test) were used and compared. Paired nasopharyngeal exudates were obtained, one swab for PCR and the other for antigen detection. Each antigen detection test was evaluated on one cohort.

RESULTS

All tests showed invariably 100% specificity. Sensitivity was 68.9% (95% CI: 55.7-80; SGTI-Flex), 71.1% (95% CI: 55.6-83.6; Panbio), and 84.6% (95% CI: 72-93.1; NovaGen) in clinically suspected patients and 84.6% (95% CI: 54.5-98.1), 33.3% (95% CI: 11.8-61.6), and 55.6% (95% CI: 30.7-78.4) in close asymptomatic contacts, respectively. Sensitivity was systematically higher in samples yielding positive PCR results with Ct ≤ 20.

DISCUSSION

We found considerable test-to-test antigen detection variations among patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and close asymptomatic contacts. Negative antigen results, regardless of the test used, should be confirmed by PCR.

Antibody Response and Maternofetal Antibody Transfer in SARS-CoV-2-Positive Pregnant Women: A Multicenter Observational Study

Introduction Awareness of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women and the potential risk for infection of their neonates is increasing. The aim of this study was to examine the immune status of affected women and evaluate the dynamics of placental antibody transfer.

Materials and Methods The study included 176 women with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy who delivered between April 2020 and December 2021 at eight obstetric maternity sites. Demographic data, maternal and neonatal characteristics were summarized. Antibody testing for IgA and IgG in maternal blood sera and umbilical cord samples was evaluated and IgG transfer ratios were calculated. Values were related to the time of infection during pregnancy and birth.

Results The percentage of IgG positive women increased from 29.0% (95% CI 23.8 – 37.8) at presentation with a positive PCR test result to 75.7% (95% CI 71.6 – 79.8), the percentage of IgG positive umbilical cord blood samples increased from 17.1% (95% CI 13.0 – 21.3) to 76.4% (95% CI 72.2 – 80.7) at more than six weeks after infection. Regression lines differed significantly between maternal and fetal IgG responses (p < 0.0001). Newborns react with a latency of about one week; umbilical cord blood antibody concentrations are highly correlated with maternal concentration levels (ρ = 0.8042; p < 0.0001). IgG transplacental transfer ratios were dependent on infection-to-birth interval. Two of the umbilical cord blood samples tested positive for IgA.

Conclusions These findings confirm vertical SARS-CoV-2 transmission is rare; however, antibodies are transferred to the fetus soon after infection during pregnancy. Since transplacental antibody transfer might have a protective value for neonatal immunization this information may be helpful when counseling affected women.

What Is the Antibody Response and Role in Conferring Natural Immunity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection? Rapid, Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 2)

DESCRIPTION

The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the current best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. This is version 2 of the ACP practice points, which serves to update version 1, published on 16 March 2021. These practice points do not evaluate vaccine-acquired immunity or cellular immunity.

METHODS

The SMPC developed this version of the living, rapid practice points based on an updated living, rapid, systematic review conducted by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

PRACTICE POINT 1

Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PRACTICE POINT 2

Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to predict the degree or duration of natural immunity conferred by antibodies against reinfection, including natural immunity against different variants.

RETIREMENT FROM LIVING STATUS

Although natural immunity remains a topic of scientific interest, this topic is being retired from living status given the availability of effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and widespread recommendations for and prevalence of their use. Currently, vaccination is the best clinical recommendation for preventing infection, reinfection, and serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

Development and implementation of a COVID-19 convalescent plasma program in a middle-income economy

Introduction

Convalescent Plasma therapy is one of the therapeutic strategies that has been used for patients with the Covid-19 disease. Implementing a program with national extension to supply hospitals with this blood component is a great challenge mainly in a middle-income economy.

Objectives

Our objective was to develop and implement a Covid-19 Convalescent Plasma Program which met established quality standards and was adapted to a reality of limited resources.

Methods

A multicentric convalescent plasma collection program was developed and implemented, based on four main sequential procedures: selective donor recruitment, pre-donation antibody screening (Anti-SARS-CoV-2- Chemiluminescence IgG Abbott), convalescent plasma collection by apheresis or whole-blood processing and distribution to the hospitals according to local demand.

Results

From the 572 candidates submitted to the pre-donation antibody screening, only 270 (47%) were considered eligible for plasma donation according to the established criteria. Higher levels of total antibody were associated with the donor age being above 45 years old (p = 0.002), hospital admission (p = 0.018), and a shorter interval between the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection and plasma donation (p < 0.001). There was no association between the ABO and Rh blood groups and their antibody levels. Of the 468 donations made, 61% were from the collection of whole-blood and 39%, from apheresis. The Covid-19 Convalescent Plasma units obtained were distributed to 21 different cities throughout the country by air or ground transportation.

Conclusion

The implementation of a Covid-19 Convalescent Plasma program in a continental country with relatively scarce resources is feasible with alternative strategies to promote lower cost procedures, while complying with local regulations and meeting quality standards.

Insight into prognostics, diagnostics, and management strategies for SARS CoV-2

The foremost challenge in countering infectious diseases is the shortage of effective therapeutics. The emergence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak has posed a great menace to the public health system globally, prompting unprecedented endeavors to contain the virus. Many countries have organized research programs for therapeutics and management development. However, the longstanding process has forced authorities to implement widespread infrastructures for detailed prognostic and diagnostics study of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS CoV-2). This review discussed nearly all the globally developed diagnostic methodologies reported for SARS CoV-2 detection. We have highlighted in detail the approaches for evaluating COVID-19 biomarkers along with the most employed nucleic acid- and protein-based detection methodologies and the causes of their severe downfall and rejection. As the variable variants of SARS CoV-2 came into the picture, we captured the breadth of newly integrated digital sensing prototypes comprised of plasmonic and field-effect transistor-based sensors along with commercially available food and drug administration (FDA) approved detection kits. However, more efforts are required to exploit the available resources to manufacture cheap and robust diagnostic methodologies. Likewise, the visualization and characterization tools along with the current challenges associated with waste-water surveillance, food security, contact tracing, and their role during this intense period of the pandemic have also been discussed. We expect that the integrated data will be supportive and aid in the evaluation of sensing technologies not only in current but also future pandemics.

Combined anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgG, and IgM Detection as a Better Strategy to Prevent Second Infection Spreading Waves

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is challenging many health, economic, and social systems. RT-PCR assays are diagnosis gold standard; however, they can lead to false-negative results. Therefore, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgM, and IgA investigation can play a complementary role in assessing the individuals immune status. Majority of serological tests focus on IgM and IgG although IgA are the main immunoglobulins involved in mucosal immunity. It has been reported that digestive symptoms may occur in the absence of any typical respiratory symptom. Thus, a complete screening, comprising IgA, IgM, and IgG detection could be more consistent and useful in patients with atypical symptoms or in paucisymptomatic cases. Current literature describes over 200 immunoassays available worldwide, pointing out a great results variability, depending on methodology or antigens' nature. In our study we evaluated anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG trend on a control group and on two COVID-19 patient groups (early and late infection time) with a lateral-flow combined immunoassay (LFIA) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Dissimilar antibodies time kinetics have been described in COVID-19 (decreasing IgM concentration with IgA/IgG persistence for a longer time; as well as persistent IgA, IgG, and IgM concentration); our results confirmed both of them depending on the methodology; therefore, it is difficult to compare different studies outcomes, suggesting the importance of a serological tests international standardization. Nevertheless, we propose a flowchart with combined anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM/IgA detection as a screening on general population, where serological positivity should be considered as an "alert," to avoid and contain possible new outbreaks.

Identifying COVID-19 Infections From a Vaccinated Population Using Specific IgA Antibody Test

We analyzed the serum from COVID-19 patients and vaccinated subjects, and found that the specific IgA titer level could be used to assist COVID-19 diagnosis, especially in China.

Low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence but high perception of risk among healthcare workers at children's hospital before second pandemic wave in Germany

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are considered a particularly high-risk group during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Healthcare workers in paediatrics are a unique subgroup: they come into frequent contact with children, who often experience few or no symptoms when infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and, therefore, may transmit the disease to unprotected staff. In Germany, no studies exist evaluating the risk of COVID-19 to healthcare workers in paediatric institutions.

METHODS

We tested the staff at a large children's hospital in Germany for immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 in a period between the first and second epidemic wave in Germany. We used a questionnaire to assess each individual's exposure risk and his/her own perception of having already been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

We recruited 619 participants from all sectors, clinical and non-clinical, constituting 70% of the entire staff. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 0.325% (95% confidence interval 0.039-1.168). Self-perceived risk of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased with age (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.93). Having experienced symptoms more than doubled the odds of a high self-perceived risk (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-3.00). There was no significant difference in self-perceived risk between men and women.

CONCLUSIONS

Seroprevalence was low among healthcare workers at a large children's hospital in Germany before the second epidemic wave, and it was far from a level that confers herd immunity. Self-perceived risk of infection is often overestimated.

An inventory of diagnostic tools for detection of COVID-19

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-COV-2 has afflicted millions of lives globally and disrupted almost all the activities of mankind. Under such pressing circumstances when there are no effective therapeutics available, fast and accurate diagnosis of the corona virus is the only way out to limit the transmission. Since the inception of COVID-19, the demand of diagnostic tests has increased day by day and RT-PCR is the commonly used screening test which is not only time consuming but requires sophisticated resources. To address the increasing rate of spread of COVID-19, there is an urgent need of more diagnostic tools as the researches on vaccines is still at rudimentary level. This review summarizes an inventory on the diverse and currently available diagnostic methods based on nucleic acid and serology along with some of those working on novel principles viz. CRISPR, biosensors and NGS. Additionally, a gist of accessible diagnostic kits that are already approved by US & European authorities for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are also suggested that will help in selecting most effective tests under the given scenario. Taken together, this review will pave way for further strengthening the researches in the rapid and safer diagnostics of SARS-COV-2.

Applications of laboratory findings in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of COVID-19

The worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents us with a serious public health crisis. To combat the virus and slow its spread, wider testing is essential. There is a need for more sensitive, specific, and convenient detection methods of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Advanced detection can greatly improve the ability and accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, which is conducive to the early suitable treatment and supports precise prophylaxis. In this article, we combine and present the latest laboratory diagnostic technologies and methods for SARS-CoV-2 to identify the technical characteristics, considerations, biosafety requirements, common problems with testing and interpretation of results, and coping strategies of commonly used testing methods. We highlight the gaps in current diagnostic capacity and propose potential solutions to provide cutting-edge technical support to achieve a more precise diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of COVID-19 and to overcome the difficulties with the normalization of epidemic prevention and control.

Evaluation and Comparison of Serological Methods for COVID-19 Diagnosis

The worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 has become a global public health crisis. Various clinical diagnosis methods have been developed to distinguish COVID-19-infected patients from healthy people. The nucleic acid test is the golden standard for virus detection as it is suitable for early diagnosis. However, due to the low amount of viral nucleic acid in the respiratory tract, the sensitivity of nucleic acid detection is unsatisfactory. As a result, serological screening began to be widely used with the merits of simple procedures, lower cost, and shorter detection time. Serological tests currently include the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). This review describes various serological methods, discusses the performance and diagnostic effects of different methods, and points out the problems and the direction of optimization, to improve the efficiency of clinical diagnosis. These increasingly sophisticated and diverse serological diagnostic technologies will help human beings to control the spread of COVID-19.

Neutralising SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies persist for at least six months independently of symptoms in adults

Background

In spring 2020, at the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Europe, we set up an assay system for large-scale testing of virus-specific and neutralising antibodies including their longevity.

Methods

We analysed the sera of 1655 adult employees for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies using the S1 subunit of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Sera containing S1-reactive antibodies were further evaluated for receptor-binding domain (RBD)- and nucleocapsid protein (NCP)-specific antibodies in relation to the neutralisation test (NT) results at three time points over six months.

Results

We detect immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgA antibodies reactive to the S1 protein in 10.15% (n = 168) of the participants. In total, 0.97% (n = 16) are positive for S1-IgG, 0.91% (n = 15) were S1-IgG- borderline and 8.28% (n = 137) exhibit only S1-IgA antibodies. Of the 168 S1-reactive sera, 8.33% (n = 14) have detectable RBD-specific antibodies and 6.55% (n = 11) NCP-specific antibodies. The latter correlates with NTs (kappa coefficient = 0.8660) but start to decline after 3 months. RBD-specific antibodies correlate most closely with the NT (kappa = 0.9448) and only these antibodies are stable for up to six months. All participants with virus-neutralising antibodies report symptoms, of which anosmia and/or dysgeusia correlate most closely with the detection of virus-neutralising antibodies.

Conclusions

RBD-specific antibodies are most reliably detected post-infection, independent of the number/severity of symptoms, and correlate with neutralising antibodies at least for six months. They thus qualify best for large-scale seroepidemiological evaluation of both antibody reactivity and virus neutralisation.

Insights into household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from a population-based serological survey

Understanding the risk of infection from household- and community-exposures and the transmissibility of asymptomatic infections is critical to SARS-CoV-2 control. Limited previous evidence is based primarily on virologic testing, which disproportionately misses mild and asymptomatic infections. Serologic measures are more likely to capture all previously infected individuals. We apply household transmission models to data from a cross-sectional, household-based population serosurvey of 4,534 people ≥5 years from 2,267 households enrolled April-June 2020 in Geneva, Switzerland. We found that the risk of infection from exposure to a single infected household member aged ≥5 years (17.3%,13.7-21.7) was more than three-times that of extra-household exposures over the first pandemic wave (5.1%,4.5-5.8). Young children had a lower risk of infection from household members. Working-age adults had the highest extra-household infection risk. Seropositive asymptomatic household members had 69.4% lower odds (95%CrI,31.8-88.8%) of infecting another household member compared to those reporting symptoms, accounting for 14.5% (95%CrI, 7.2-22.7%) of all household infections.

What Is the Antibody Response and Role in Conferring Natural Immunity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection? Rapid, Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1)

DESCRIPTION

The widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests raises important questions for clinicians, patients, and public health professionals related to the appropriate use and interpretation of these tests. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians developed these rapid, living practice points to summarize the current and best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody durability after initial infection with SARS-CoV-2, and antibody protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

The SMPC developed these rapid, living practice points based on a rapid and living systematic evidence review done by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ongoing literature surveillance is planned through December 2021. When new studies are identified and a full update of the evidence review is published, the SMPC will assess the new evidence and any effect on the practice points.

PRACTICE POINT 1

Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PRACTICE POINT 2

Antibody tests can be useful for the purpose of estimating community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

PRACTICE POINT 3

Current evidence is uncertain to predict presence, level, or durability of natural immunity conferred by SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against reinfection (after SARS-CoV-2 infection).

Antibody Response After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity : A Rapid Living Review

BACKGROUND

The clinical significance of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear.

PURPOSE

To synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of detectable antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confer natural immunity.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization global literature database, and Covid19reviews.org from 1 January through 15 December 2020, limited to peer-reviewed publications available in English.

STUDY SELECTION

Primary studies characterizing the prevalence, levels, and duration of antibodies in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); reinfection incidence; and unintended consequences of antibody testing.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Moderate-strength evidence suggests that most adults develop detectable levels of IgM and IgG antibodies after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and that IgG levels peak approximately 25 days after symptom onset and may remain detectable for at least 120 days. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that IgM levels peak at approximately 20 days and then decline. Low-strength evidence suggests that most adults generate neutralizing antibodies, which may persist for several months like IgG. Low-strength evidence also suggests that older age, greater disease severity, and presence of symptoms may be associated with higher antibody levels. Some adults do not develop antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection for reasons that are unclear.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies were small and had methodological limitations; studies used immunoassays of variable accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Most adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR develop antibodies. Levels of IgM peak early in the disease course and then decline, whereas IgG peaks later and may remain detectable for at least 120 days.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays in serial samples reveal earlier seroconversion in acutely ill COVID-19 patients developing ARDS

OBJECTIVES

During the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has been suggested for (1) screening populations for disease prevalence, (2) diagnostics, and (3) guiding therapeutic applications. Here, we conducted a detailed clinical evaluation of four Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in samples from acutely ill COVID-19 patients and in two negative cohorts.

METHODS

443 serum specimens from serial sampling of 29 COVID-19 patients were used to determine clinical sensitivities. Patients were stratified for the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Individual serum specimens from a pre-COVID-19 cohort of 238 healthy subjects and from a PCR-negative clinical cohort of 257 patients were used to determine clinical specificities. All samples were measured side-by-side with the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgG), Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgA) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun AG, Lübeck, Germany) and the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA (Roche Diagnostics International, Rotkreuz, Switzerland).

RESULTS

Median seroconversion occurred earlier in ARDS patients (8-9 days) than in non-ARDS patients (11-17 days), except for EUR N-IgG. Rates of positivity and mean signal ratios in the ARDS group were significantly higher than in the non-ARDS group. Sensitivities between the four tested immunoassays were equivalent. In the set of negative samples, the specificity of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgA) was lower (93.9%) compared to all other assays (≥98.8%) and the specificity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (IgG) was lower (98.8%) than that of Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial sampling in COVID-19 patients revealed earlier seroconversion and higher signal ratios of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a potential risk marker for the development of ARDS, suggesting a utility for antibody testing in acutely diseased patients.

Evaluation of 3 SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody Assays and Correlation with Neutralizing Antibodies

Background

As serologic assays for SARS-CoV-2 become more widely utilized, it is important to understand their performance characteristics and correlation with neutralizing antibodies. We evaluated three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays (Abbott, DiaSorin and EUROIMMUN) for clinical sensitivity, specificity, and correlation with neutralizing antibodies and then compared antibody kinetics during the acute phase of infection.

Methods

Three panels of samples were tested on every assay. Sensitivity was assessed using a panel of 35 specimens serially collected from 7 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Specificity was determined using 100 sera samples collected in 2018 from healthy individuals prior to the outbreak. Analytical specificity was determined using a panel of 37 samples from individuals with respiratory illnesses other than COVID-19.

Results

Clinical sensitivity was 91.43% (95% CI 76.94%-98.20%) for Abbott, and 88.57% (95% CI 73.26%-96.80%) for both DiaSorin and EUROIMMUN. Clinical specificity was 99.00% (95% CI 94.55%-99.97%) for Abbott and DiaSorin and 94.00% (95% CI 87.40%-97.77%) for EUROIMMUN. The IgG assays demonstrated good qualitative agreement (minimum of 94%) and good correlation between the quantitative result for each combination of assays (r2≥0.90). The neutralizing antibody response did not necessarily follow the same temporal kinetics as the IgG response and did not necessarily correlate with IgG values.

Conclusion

The three IgG antibody assays demonstrated comparable performance characteristics. Importantly, a qualitative positive IgG result obtained with any of the assays was associated with the presence of neutralizing antibodies; however, neutralizing antibody concentrations did not correlate well with signal to cutoff ratios.

The real life performance of 7 automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM/IgA immunoassays

OBJECTIVES

This study was aimed at providing some insights into the real-life performance of the commercial, clinically validated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.

METHODS

The residual, anonymized samples from 97 patients referred for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing were included in the study. The initial assessment was performed with the Euroimmun ELISAs, followed by the assays provided by: NovaTec, Snibe, Vircell, Roche, Abbott and DiaSorin. The analyses of the results were performed separately for the antibodies of the early (IgM/IgA) and late (IgG) immune response.

RESULTS

We observed a high variability of the results obtained with the investigated immunoassays. The fully concordant results were reported for only 57 out of 97 samples tested for IgG antibodies and for 34 out of 97 samples for IgM/IgA. The highest percentage of positive results was noted for the Euroimmun and Vircell ELISAs and the lowest for Novatec ELISAs.We proposed to distinguish true and false positive results based on the sum of positive results obtained with different methods. We arbitrarily considered reference positive samples reactive in at least half of the assays. The assay that proved to correlate the best with those reference results was the Roche electrochemiluminescence immunoassay.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences observed between immunoassays targeting the early phase antibodies were much more pronounced than between IgG assays, suggesting their lower value for clinical use. Our study also showed a high percentage of plausibly false (positive or negative) results obtained with ELISAs, which suggests their inferiority to the automated immunoassays.

Analysis of IgM, IgA, and IgG isotype antibodies Directed against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and ORF8 in the course of COVID-19

Immunoassays are a standard diagnostic tool that assesses immunity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, immunoassays do not provide information about contaminating antigens or cross-reactions and might exhibit inaccurately high sensitivity and low specificity. We aimed to gain insight into the serological immune response of SARS-CoV-2 patients by immunoblot analysis. We analyzed serum immunoglobulins IgM, -A, and -G directed against SARS-CoV-2 proteins by immunoblot analysis from 12 infected patients. We determined IgG isotype antibodies by commercially available ELISA and assessed the clinical parameters of inflammation status and kidney and liver injury. Unexpectedly, we found no correlation between the presence of antibodies and the future course of the disease. However, attention should be paid to the parameters CRP, IL-6, and LDH. We found evidence of antibody cross-reactivity, which questions the reliability of results for serum samples that tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies when assessed by immunoassays. Nevertheless, for the detection of IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, our data suggest that the use of the spike glycoprotein in immunoassays should be sufficient to identify positive patients. Using a combination of the spike glycoprotein and the open reading frame 8 protein could prove to be the best way of detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies.

Single-Dilution COVID-19 Antibody Test with Qualitative and Quantitative Readouts

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to place an immense burden on societies and health care systems. A key component of COVID-19 control efforts is serological testing to determine the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and quantify individual immune responses to prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Here, we describe a laboratory-developed antibody test that uses readily available research-grade reagents to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in patient blood samples with high sensitivity and specificity. We further show that this sensitive test affords the estimation of viral spike-specific IgG titers from a single sample measurement, thereby providing a simple and scalable method to measure the strength of an individual's immune response. The accuracy, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness of this test make it an excellent option for clinical deployment in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.IMPORTANCE Serological surveillance has become an important public health tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. Detection of protective antibodies and seroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination can help guide patient care plans and public health policies. Serology tests can detect antibodies against past infections; consequently, they can help overcome the shortcomings of molecular tests, which can detect only active infections. This is important, especially when considering that many COVID-19 patients are asymptomatic. In this study, we describe an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based qualitative and quantitative serology test developed to measure IgG and IgA antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. The test can be deployed using commonly available laboratory reagents and equipment and displays high specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, we demonstrate that IgG titers in patient samples can be estimated from a single measurement, enabling the assay's use in high-throughput clinical environments.

Assessment of S1-, S2-, and NCP-Specific IgM, IgA, and IgG Antibody Kinetics in Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection by a Microarray and Twelve Other Immunoassays

In this study, we comprehensively analyzed multispecific antibody kinetics of different immunoglobulins in hospitalized patients with acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Three hundred fifty-four blood samples longitudinally obtained from 81 IgG-seroconverting progressed coronavirus disease 2019 (CoVID-19) patients were quantified for spike 1 (S1), S2, and nucleocapsid protein (NCP)-specific IgM, IgA, IgG, and total Ig antibodies using a microarray, 11 different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs)/chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs), and 1 rapid test by seven manufacturers.

In this study, we comprehensively analyzed multispecific antibody kinetics of different immunoglobulins in hospitalized patients with acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Three hundred fifty-four blood samples longitudinally obtained from 81 IgG-seroconverting progressed coronavirus disease 2019 (CoVID-19) patients were quantified for spike 1 (S1), S2, and nucleocapsid protein (NCP)-specific IgM, IgA, IgG, and total Ig antibodies using a microarray, 11 different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs)/chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs), and 1 rapid test by seven manufacturers. The assays’ specificity was assessed in 130 non-CoVID-19 pneumonia patients. Using the microarray, NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies continuously displayed higher detection rates during acute CoVID-19 than S1- and S2-specific ones. S1-specific IgG antibodies, however, reached higher peak values. Until the 26th day post-symptom onset, all patients developed IgG responses against S1, S2, and NCP. Although detection rates by ELISAs/CLIAs generally resembled those of the microarray, corresponding to the target antigen, sensitivities and specificities varied among all tests. Notably, patients with more severe CoVID-19 displayed higher IgG and IgA levels, but this difference was mainly observed with S1-specific immunoassays. In patients with high SARS-CoV-2 levels in the lower respiratory tract, we observed high detection rates of IgG and total Ig immunoassays with a particular rise of S1-specific IgG antibodies when viral concentrations in the tracheal aspirate subsequently declined over time. In summary, our study demonstrates that differences in sensitivity among commercial immunoassays during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection are only partly related to the target antigen. Importantly, our data indicate that NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies are detected earlier, while higher S1-specific IgA antibody levels occur in severely ill patients.

Seroprevalence of Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis a Case-Control Study

There is limited data on the effect of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) on pediatric rheumatology. We examined the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and a negative history of COVID-19 and the correlation of the presence of these antibodies with disease activity measured by juvenile arthritis disease activity score (JADAS). In total, 62 patients diagnosed with JIA, under treatment with various antirheumatic drugs, and 32 healthy children (control group) were included. Serum samples were analyzed for inflammatory markers and antibodies and their state evaluated with the juvenile arthritis disease activity score (JADAS). JIA patients do not have a higher seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than healthy subjects. We found anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in JIA patients who did not have a history of COVID-19. The study showed no unequivocal correlation between the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and JIA activity; therefore, this relationship requires further observation. We also identified a possible link between patients’ humoral immune response and disease-modifying antirheumatic treatment, which will be confirmed in follow-up studies.

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence among Health Care Workers-A Voluntary Screening Study in a Regional Medical Center in Southern Germany

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with a potentially severe clinical manifestation, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and currently poses a worldwide challenge. Health care workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of any health care system and thus especially at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection due to their potentially frequent and close contact with patients suffering from COVID-19. Serum samples from 198 HCWs with direct patient contact of a regional medical center and several outpatient facilities were collected during the early phase of the pandemic (April 2020) and tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Commercially available IgA- and IgG-specific ELISAs were used as screening technique, followed by an in-house neutralization assay for confirmation. Neutralizing SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were detected in seven of 198 (3.5%) tested HCWs. There was no significant difference in seroprevalence between the regional medical center (3.4%) and the outpatient institution (5%). The overall seroprevalence of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in HCWs in both a large regional medical center and a small outpatient institution was low (3.5%) at the beginning of April 2020. The findings may indicate that the timely implemented preventive measures (strict hygiene protocols, personal protective equipment) were effective to protect from transmission of an airborne virus when only limited information on the pathogen was available.

Landscape of humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 disease and the value of antibody testing

A new pandemic is ongoing in several parts of the world. The agent responsible is the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The symptoms associated with this virus are known as the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this review, we summarize the published data on virus specific antibodies in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 disease, patients recovered from the disease and the individuals who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 infections. The review highlights the following: i) an adjunct role of antibody tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19 in combination with RT-PCR; ii) status of antibodies from COVID-19 convalescent patients to select donors for plasma therapy; iii) the potential confounding effects of other coronaviruses, measles, mumps and rubella in antibody testing due to homology of certain viral genes; and iv) the role of antibody testing for conducting surveillance in populations, incidence estimation, contact tracing and epidemiologic studies.

Wuhan to World: The COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 is a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel virus which belongs to the family Coronaviridae. It was first reported in December 2019 in the Wuhan city of China and soon after, the virus and hence the disease got spread to the entire world. As of February 26, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has infected ~112.20 million people and caused ~2.49 million deaths across the globe. Although the case fatality rate among SARS-CoV-2 patient is lower (~2.15%) than its earlier relatives, SARS-CoV (~9.5%) and MERS-CoV (~34.4%), the SARS-CoV-2 has been observed to be more infectious and caused higher morbidity and mortality worldwide. As of now, only the knowledge regarding potential transmission routes and the rapidly developed diagnostics has been guiding the world for managing the disease indicating an immediate need for a detailed understanding of the pathogen and the disease-biology. Over a very short period of time, researchers have generated a lot of information in unprecedented ways in the key areas, including viral entry into the host, dominant mutation, potential transmission routes, diagnostic targets and their detection assays, potential therapeutic targets and drug molecules for inhibiting viral entry and/or its replication in the host including cross-neutralizing antibodies and vaccine candidates that could help us to combat the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In the current review, we have summarized the available knowledge about the pathogen and the disease, COVID-19. We believe that this readily available knowledge base would serve as a valuable resource to the scientific and clinical community and may help in faster development of the solution to combat the disease.

ASSURED-SQVM diagnostics for COVID-19: addressing the why, when, where, who, what and how of testing

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2, the new coronavirus that originated in 2019, continues to impact every aspect of society in a profound manner. Testing will remain an important tool to mitigate the effects of this pandemic as early and accurate diagnosis can lead to appropriate countermeasures to reduce mortality and morbidity. However, testing isn’t a simple yes/no answer as the target and host are complex, the virus is a moving target, there is a plethora of tests that identify different parts of the virus and have their own limits and range of detection, and when prevalence is low, false positives and negatives can be very high.

Areas covered: This article covers all the major questions related to COVID-19 diagnostics, the why, when, where, who, what and how of testing, the different types of tests, interpretation of results and the ideal ASSURED-SQVM diagnostic. A comprehensive literature review using all the publicly available databases and government websites and reports was performed.

Expert opinion: Diagnostics that meet the ‘ASSURED-SQVM’ (Affordable, Selective and Sensitive, User-friendly, Rapid and Robust, Equipment-free, Deliverable to end-users and additionally, allows for Self-testing, Quantifiable, detects if pathogens are Viable and can detect Multiple pathogens) would make a major impact in our fight against the current pandemic. While a significant majority of researchers focus on developing novel diagnostics that are highly selective and sensitive, it is the opinion of these authors that other aspects of the ASSURED-SQVM principles also be considered early in the development process for widespread use.

Comprehensive evaluation of eight commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays

Sensitivity and specificity of serological assays are key parameters for the accurate estimation of SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence. The aim of this study was to compare 8 readily available IgG antibody tests using a panel of well-defined serum samples of prepandemic and pandemic origin. A cross-reaction panel included samples of patients with recent infection with either of the endemic Coronaviruses 229E, NL63, HKU1, or OC43. Additionally, samples with high antibody levels against influenza virus, adenovirus, and during acute EBV infection were included. Previous infection with endemic coronaviruses caused a significant amount of cross-reactivity in two of the assays. In contrast, the confidence intervals for the assays of Abbott, DiaSorin, Euroimmun and Roche encompassed the value of 98% for samples with a previous endemic HCoV infection. For all assays, sensitivities were between 91.3% and 98.8%. Assay performance was independent of the usage of either nucleocapsid or spike proteins.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency: The Importance of Diagnostic Methods

Background

Currently, a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is underway, resulting in high morbidity and mortality across the globe.

Summary

A prompt and effective diagnosis is crucial to identify infected individuals, to monitor the infection, to perform contact tracing, and to limit the spread of the virus. Since the announcement of this public health emergency, several diagnostic methods have been developed including molecular and serological assays, and more recently biosensors. Here, we present the use of these assays as well as their main technical features, advantages, and limits.

Key Messages

The development of reliable diagnostic assays is crucial not only for a correct diagnosis and containment of COVID-19 pandemic, but also for the decision-making process that is behind the clinical decisions, eventually contributing to the improvement of patient management. Furthermore, with the advent of vaccine and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, serological assays will be instrumental for the validation of these new therapeutic options.

Independent Side-by-Side Validation and Comparison of 4 Serological Platforms for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing

Highly sensitive and specific platforms for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are becoming increasingly important for (1) evaluating potential SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma donors, (2) studying the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections and (3) identifying individuals with seroconversion. This study provides a comparative validation of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 platforms. Unique feature of this study is the use of a representative cohort of COVID-19-convalescent patients with mild-to-moderate disease course. All platforms showed significant correlations with a SARS-CoV-2 plaque-reduction-neutralization test, with highest sensitivities for the Euroimmun and the Roche platforms, suggesting their preferential use for screening of persons at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Comparison of two commercial surrogate ELISAs to detect a neutralising antibody response to SARS-CoV-2

Introduction

Reliable methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies (NAbs) are essential for the evaluation of vaccine candidates and for the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Virus neutralisation tests (NTs) are the gold standard for the detection and quantification of NAbs, but they are complex and require BSL3 facilities. In contrast, surrogate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (sELISA) offer the possibility of high-throughput testing under standard laboratory safety conditions. In this study, we investigated two commercial sELISA kits (GenScript, AdipoGen) designed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 NAbs.

Methods

276 plasma samples were screened using commercial IgG-ELISA and NAbs titres were determined by micro-neutralisation test (micro-NT). In addition, all samples were tested in both sELISA. Sensitivity and specificity for both sELISA were determined in comparison to the micro-NT results.

Results

57 % of the samples were SARS-CoV-2 NAb positive in micro-NT, while 43 % tested negative. Comparison with micro-NT results showed a sensitivity of 98.2 % and a specificity of 69.5 % for the GenScript ELISA. The AdipoGen ELISA had a sensitivity of 83.5 % and a specificity of 97.8 %. False negative results were obtained mainly on samples with low NAbs titres.

Conclusion

Both sELISA were able to qualitatively detect NAbs in plasma samples. Sensitivity and specificity differed between sELISA with GenScript superior in sensitivity and AdipoGen superior in specificity. Both sELISA were unable to quantify NAbs, thus neither of them can completely replace conventional NTs. However, in a two-step diagnostic algorithm, AdipoGen could potentially replace NT as a subsequent confirmatory test due to its high specificity but only in settings where no exact NAbs quantification is needed.

Evaluation of a new simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM and IgG screening automated assay based on native inactivated virus

In addition to molecular testing, there is evolving interest for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies serologic assays. Majority of them focus on IgM/IgG despite IgA important role in mucosal immunity. A simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgG/IgM immunoassay, performed on an automated instrument by ELISA kit coated with native inactivated SARS-CoV-2, was detected on two control groups (negative swab healthcare workers; pre-pandemic healthy or with other viral infections individuals) and on two COVID-19 patient groups (early and late infection). Specificities were 100% in all groups, indicating no cross-reactivity with other infectious or pre-pandemic sera. Sensitivities were 94% in early infection group and 97% in total positive patient group, reaching 100% in late infection group. To our knowledge, this is the first technique based on native SARS-CoV-2. It is able to identify more positive samples than kits using recombinant antigens, therefore virus native epitopes as well as simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgM/IgG detection could help to contain COVID-19 spreading.

Humoral immunological kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and diagnostic performance of serological assays for coronavirus disease 2019: an analysis of global reports

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to rise and second waves are reported in some countries, serological test kits and strips are being considered to scale up an adequate laboratory response. This study provides an update on the kinetics of humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and performance characteristics of serological protocols (lateral flow assay [LFA], chemiluminescence immunoassay [CLIA] and ELISA) used for evaluations of recent and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. A thorough and comprehensive review of suitable and eligible full-text articles was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Wordometer and medRxiv from 10 January to 16 July 2020. These articles were searched using the Medical Subject Headings terms ‘COVID-19’, ‘Serological assay’, ‘Laboratory Diagnosis’, ‘Performance characteristics’, ‘POCT’, ‘LFA’, ‘CLIA’, ‘ELISA’ and ‘SARS-CoV-2’. Data from original research articles on SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection ≥second day postinfection were included in this study. In total, there were 7938 published articles on humoral immune response and laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19. Of these, 74 were included in this study. The detection, peak and decline period of blood anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgG and total antibodies for point-of-care testing (POCT), ELISA and CLIA vary widely. The most promising of these assays for POCT detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 at day 3 postinfection and peaked on the 15th day; ELISA products detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG at days 2 and 6 then peaked on the eighth day; and the most promising CLIA product detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 at day 1 and peaked on the 30th day. The most promising LFA, ELISA and CLIA that had the best performance characteristics were those targeting total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies followed by those targeting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG then IgM. Essentially, the CLIA-based SARS-CoV-2 tests had the best performance characteristics, followed by ELISA then POCT. Given the varied performance characteristics of all the serological assays, there is a need to continuously improve their detection thresholds, as well as to monitor and re-evaluate their performances to assure their significance and applicability for COVID-19 clinical and epidemiological purposes.

Serological antibody testing in the COVID-19 pandemic: their molecular basis and applications

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has placed an overwhelming burden on the healthcare system, and caused major disruption to the world economy. COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus that leads to a variety of symptoms in humans, including cough, fever and respiratory failure. SARS-CoV-2 infection can trigger extensive immune responses, including the production of antibodies. The detection of antibody response by serological testing provides a supplementary diagnostic tool to molecular tests. We hereby present a succinct yet comprehensive review on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as molecular mechanisms behind the strengths and limitations of serological antibody tests. The presence of antibodies can be detected in patient sera within days post symptom onset. Serological tests demonstrate superior sensitivity to molecular tests in some periods of time during disease development. Compared with the molecular tests, serological tests can be used for point-of-care testing, providing faster results at a lower cost. Commercially available serological tests show variable sensitivity and specificity, and the molecular basis of these variabilities are analysed. We discuss assays of different complexities that are used to specifically quantitate neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, which has important implications for vaccine development and herd immunity. Furthermore, we discuss examples of successful applications of serological tests to contact tracing and community-level sero-surveying, which provide invaluable information for pandemic management and assessment.

Analysis of Recent Bio-/Nanotechnologies for Coronavirus Diagnosis and Therapy

Despite barrier measures and physical distancing tailored by the populations worldwide, coronavirus continues to spread causing severe health and social-economic problems. Therefore, researchers are focusing on developing efficient detection and therapeutic platforms for SARS-CoV2. In this context, various biotechnologies, based on novel molecules targeting the virus with high specificity and affinity, have been described. In parallel, new approaches exploring nanotechnology have been proposed for enhancing treatments and diagnosis. We discuss in the first part of this review paper, the different biosensing and rapid tests based on antibodies, nucleic acids and peptide probes described since the beginning of the pandemic. Furthermore, given their numerous advantages, the contribution of nanotechnologies is also highlighted.

Symptoms and laboratory manifestations of mild COVID-19 in a repatriated cruise ship cohort

Much of our current understanding about novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) comes from hospitalised patients. However, the spectrum of mild and subclinical disease has implications for population-level screening and control. Forty-nine participants were recruited from a group of 99 adults repatriated from a cruise ship with a high incidence of COVID-19. Respiratory and rectal swabs were tested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Sera were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and microneutralisation assay. Symptoms, viral shedding and antibody response were examined. Forty-five participants (92%) were considered cases based on either positive PCR or positive ELISA for immunoglobulin G. Forty-two percent of cases were asymptomatic. Only 15% of symptomatic cases reported fever. Serial respiratory and rectal swabs were positive for 10% and 5% of participants respectively about 3 weeks after median symptom onset. Cycle threshold values were high (range 31–45). Attempts to isolate live virus were unsuccessful. The presence of symptoms was not associated with demographics, comorbidities or antibody response. In closed settings, incidence of COVID-19 could be almost double that suggested by symptom-based screening. Serology may be useful in diagnosis of mild disease and in aiding public health investigations.

A peptide-based assay discriminates individual antibody response to SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-2 virus is responsible for the current worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, infecting millions of people and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. Understanding the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for the development of vaccines, therapeutics and public health interventions. However, lack of consistency in methods used to monitor antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 leaves some uncertainty in our fine understanding of the human antibody response mounted following SARS-CoV-2 infection. We developed a peptide-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) by selecting 7 synthetic peptides from the spike, membrane, and nucleocapsid protein sequences of SARS-CoV-2, which effectively detects the antibody response mounted by all COVID-19 convalescent tested. Strikingly, the assay shows a profound difference in antibody response among individual subjects, which may have a significant impact on disease severity. Together, our results define an efficient and specific serological assay to consistently measure the antibody response following SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as help the design of vaccine and therapeuticals for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Sustained cellular immunity in adults recovered from mild COVID-19

Transient lymphocytopenia is frequently observed in acute phase of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). It remains a concern whether impairment of cellular immunity may be retained after COVID‐19. Here, we demonstrate by extensive lymphocyte profiling in 44 adults after mild COVID‐19 that cellular immunity is not fundamentally altered in convalescent patients. Except for increased activated CD8+ lymphocytes, total counts of B, T, and NK cells and their subsets did not differ significantly between patients after COVID‐19 and healthy controls after a median of 27 days (range 13–45) suggesting no residual cellular immune deficiency after recovery from mild COVID‐19.

Comparison of Two Commercial Platforms and a Laboratory-Developed Test for Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA

Mitigation of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires reliable and accessible laboratory diagnostic services. In this study, the performance of one laboratory-developed test (LDT) and two commercial tests, cobas SARS-CoV-2 (Roche) and Amplidiag COVID-19 (Mobidiag), were evaluated for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in respiratory specimens. A total of 183 specimens collected from suspected COVID-19 patients were studied with all three methods to compare their performance. In relation to the reference standard, which was established as the result obtained by two of the three studied methods, the positive percent agreement was highest for the cobas test (100%), followed by the Amplidiag test and the LDT (98.9%). The negative percent agreement was lowest for the cobas test (89.4%), followed by the Amplidiag test (98.8%), and the highest value was obtained for the LDT (100%). The dilution series of positive specimens, however, suggests significantly higher sensitivity for the cobas assay in comparison with the other two assays, and the low negative percent agreement value may be due to the same reason. In general, all tested assays performed adequately. Clinical laboratories need to be prepared for uninterrupted high-throughput testing during the coming months to mitigate the pandemic. To ensure no interruption, it is critical that clinical laboratories maintain several simultaneous platforms in their SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing.

A 10-Minute "Mix and Read" Antibody Assay for SARS-CoV-2

Accurate and rapid diagnostic tools are needed for management of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Antibody tests enable detection of individuals past the initial phase of infection and help examine vaccine responses. The major targets of human antibody response in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are the spike glycoprotein (SP) and nucleocapsid protein (NP). We have developed a rapid homogenous approach for antibody detection termed LFRET (protein L-based time-resolved Förster resonance energy transfer immunoassay). In LFRET, fluorophore-labeled protein L and antigen are brought to close proximity by antigen-specific patient immunoglobulins of any isotype, resulting in TR-FRET signal. We set up LFRET assays for antibodies against SP and NP and evaluated their diagnostic performance using a panel of 77 serum/plasma samples from 44 individuals with COVID-19 and 52 negative controls. Moreover, using a previously described SP and a novel NP construct, we set up enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 SP and NP. We then compared the LFRET assays with these ELISAs and with a SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization test (MNT). We found the LFRET assays to parallel ELISAs in sensitivity (90–95% vs. 90–100%) and specificity (100% vs. 94–100%). In identifying individuals with or without a detectable neutralizing antibody response, LFRET outperformed ELISA in specificity (91–96% vs. 82–87%), while demonstrating an equal sensitivity (98%). In conclusion, this study demonstrates the applicability of LFRET, a 10-min “mix and read” assay, to detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2: A Diagnostic Challenge

The highly pathogenic MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 cause acute respiratory syndrome and are often fatal. These new viruses pose major problems to global health in general and primarily to infection control and public health services. Accurate and selective assessment of MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 would assist in the effective diagnosis of infected individual, offer clinical guidance and aid in assessing clinical outcomes. In this mini-review, we review the literature on various aspects, including the history and diversity of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, their detection methods in effective clinical diagnosis, clinical assessment of COVID-19, safety guidelines recommended by World Health Organization and legal regulations. This review article also deals with existing challenges and difficulties in the clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. Developing alternative diagnostic platforms by spotting the shortcomings of the existing point-of-care diagnostic devices would be useful in preventing future outbreaks.

Characteristics of COVID-19 Patients Based on the Results of Nucleic Acid and Specific Antibodies and the Clinical Relevance of Antibody Levels

Combination of nucleic acid and specific antibody testing is often required in the diagnosis of COVID-19, but whether patients with different nucleic acid and antibody results have different laboratory parameters, severities and clinical outcomes, has not yet been comprehensively investigated. Thus, according to different groups of nucleic acid and antibody results, we aimed to investigate the differences in demographic characteristics, and laboratory parameters among the different groups and predict their clinical outcomes. In our study, nasopharyngeal swab nucleic acids and antibodies were detected by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction and chemiluminescence, respectively. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 with different severities, were divided into the PCR⁺Ab⁺, PCR⁺Ab⁻, and PCR⁻Ab⁺ groups. Demographic characteristics, symptoms, comorbidities, laboratory parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared among the three groups. The correlation of antibodies with laboratory parameters and clinical outcomes was also explored, and antibodies were used to predict the timing of nucleic acid conversion. We found that a total of 364 COVID-19 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, a total of 184, 37, and 143 patients were assigned to the PCR⁺Ab⁺, PCR⁺Ab⁻, and PCR⁻Ab⁺ groups, respectively. Compared to patients in the PCR⁺Ab⁻ or PCR⁻ Ab⁺ groups, patients in the PCR⁺Ab⁺ group presented worse symptoms, more comorbidities, more laboratory abnormalities, and worse clinical outcomes (P < 0.05). In addition, the levels of IgG, IgM, and IgA were all significantly correlated with the days of hospitalization, days of PCR turning negative, and multiple laboratory parameters (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, combined IgM, IgA, and IgG predicted the days of PCR turning negative within 1 week. The best performance was achieved when the cut-off values of IgM, IgG, and IgA were 3.2, 1.8 and 0.5, respectively, with a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 82%. In conclusion, COVID-19 patients who were both positive for nucleic acids and antibodies presented with worse clinical features, laboratory abnormalities, and clinical outcomes. The three specific antibodies were positively correlated with clinical outcomes and most laboratory parameters. Furthermore, antibody levels can predict the time of nucleic acid conversion.

Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020.

METHODS

Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.