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

Performance Analysis of Serodiagnostic Tests to Characterize the Incline and Decline of the Individual Humoral Immune Response in COVID-19 Patients: Impact on Diagnostic Management

Serodiagnostic tests for antibody detection to estimate the immunoprotective status regarding SARS-CoV-2 support diagnostic management. This study aimed to investigate the performance of serological assays for COVID-19 and elaborate on test-specific characteristics. Sequential samples (n = 636) of four panels (acute COVID-19, convalescent COVID-19 (partly vaccinated post-infection), pre-pandemic, and cross-reactive) were tested for IgG by indirect immunofluorescence test (IIFT) and EUROIMMUN EUROLINE Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Profile (IgG). Neutralizing antibodies were determined by a virus neutralization test (VNT) and two surrogate neutralization tests (sVNT, GenScript cPass, and EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 NeutraLISA). Analysis of the acute and convalescent panels revealed high positive (78.3% and 91.6%) and negative (91.6%) agreement between IIFT and Profile IgG. The sVNTs revealed differences in their positive (cPass: 89.4% and 97.0%, NeutraLISA: 71.5% and 72.1%) and negative agreement with VNT (cPass: 92.3% and 50.0%, NeutraLISA: 95.1% and 92.5%) at a diagnostic specificity of 100% for all tests. The cPass showed higher inhibition rates than NeutraLISA at VNT titers below 1:640. Cross-reactivities were only found by cPass (57.1%). Serodiagnostic tests, which showed substantial agreement and fast runtime, could provide alternatives for cell-based assays. The findings of this study suggest that careful interpretation of serodiagnostic results obtained at different times after SARS-CoV-2 antigen exposure is crucial to support decision-making in diagnostic management.

Humoral and cellular immune responses in fully vaccinated individuals with or without SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection: Results from the CoV-ADAPT cohort

Despite recent advances in prophylactic vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infections continue to cause significant morbidity. A better understanding of immune response differences between vaccinated individuals with and without later SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection is urgently needed. CoV-ADAPT is a prospective long-term study comparing humoral (anti-spike-RBD-IgG, neutralization capacity, avidity) and cellular (spike-induced T-cell interferon-γ [IFN-γ] release) immune responses in individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 at four different time points (three before and one after third vaccination). In this cohort study, 62 fully vaccinated individuals presented with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections vs 151 without infection 3-7 months following third vaccination. Breakthrough infections significantly increased anti-spike-RBD-IgG (p < 0.01), but not spike-directed T-cell IFN-γ release (TC) or antibody avidity. Despite comparable surrogate neutralization indices, the functional neutralization capacity against SARS-CoV-2-assessed via a tissue culture-based assay-was significantly higher following breakthrough vs no breakthrough infection. Anti-spike-RBD-IgG and antibody avidity decreased with age (p < 0.01) and females showed higher anti-spike-RBD-IgG (p < 0.01), and a tendency towards higher antibody avidity (p = 0.051). The association between humoral and cellular immune responses previously reported at various time points was lost in subjects after breakthrough infections (p = 0.807). Finally, a machine-learning approach based on our large immunological dataset (a total of 49 variables) from different time points was unable to predict breakthrough infections (area under the curve: 0.55). In conclusion, distinct differences in humoral vs cellular immune responses in fully vaccinated individuals with or without breakthrough infection could be demonstrated. Breakthrough infections predominantly drive the humoral response without boosting the cellular component. Breakthrough infections could not be predicted based on immunological data, which indicates a superior role of environmental factors (e.g., virus exposure) in individualized risk assessment.

Monitoring of Sotrovimab-Levels as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Kidney Transplant Recipients Not Responding to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines

Background Sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2, is used as a pre-exposition prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID-19, but monitoring strategies using routine test systems have not been defined. Methods Twenty kidney transplant recipients without antibodies after vaccination received 500 mg Sotrovimab. Antibody levels were quantified over eight weeks using live-virus neutralization (BA1 and BA2), antibody binding assays (TrimericS, Elecsys, QuantiVAC) and surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs; TECOmedical, cPass and NeutraLISA). Results Sotrovimab neutralized both Omicron subvariants (BA1 NT titer 90 (+-50) > BA2 NT titer 33 (+-15) one hour post infusion). Sotrovimab was measurable on all used immunoassays, although a prior 1:100 dilution was necessary for Elecsys due to a presumed prozone effect. The best correlation with live-virus neutralization titers was found for QuantiVAC and TrimericS, with a respective R2 of 0.65/0.59 and 0.76/0.57 against BA1/BA2. Elecsys showed an R2 of 0.56/0.54 for BA1/BA2, respectively. sVNT values increased after infusion but had only a poor correlation with live-virus neutralization titers (TECOmedical and cPass) or did not reach positivity thresholds (NeutraLISA). Conclusion Antibody measurements by the used immunoassays showed differences in antibody levels and only a limited correlation with neutralization capacity. We do not recommend sVNTs for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 neutralization by Sotrovimab.

Hybrid immunity in older adults is associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 infections following BNT162b2 COVID-19 immunisation

BACKGROUND

Older adults, particularly in long-term care facilities (LTCF), remain at considerable risk from SARS-CoV-2. Data on the protective effect and mechanisms of hybrid immunity are skewed towards young adults precluding targeted vaccination strategies.

METHODS

A single-centre longitudinal seroprevalence vaccine response study was conducted with 280 LCTF participants (median 82 yrs, IQR 76-88 yrs; 95.4% male). Screening by SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction with weekly asymptomatic/symptomatic testing (March 2020-October 2021) and serology pre-/post-two-dose Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccination for (i) anti-nucleocapsid, (ii) quantified anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies at three time-intervals, (iii) pseudovirus neutralisation, and (iv) inhibition by anti-RBD competitive ELISA were conducted. Neutralisation activity: antibody titre relationship was assessed via beta linear-log regression and RBD antibody-binding inhibition: post-vaccine infection relationship by Wilcoxon rank sum test.

RESULTS

Here we show neutralising antibody titres are 9.2-fold (95% CI 5.8-14.5) higher associated with hybrid immunity (p < 0.00001); +7.5-fold (95% CI 4.6-12.1) with asymptomatic infection; +20.3-fold, 95% (CI 9.7-42.5) with symptomatic infection. A strong association is observed between antibody titre: neutralising activity (p < 0.00001) and rising anti-RBD antibody titre: RBD antibody-binding inhibition (p < 0.001), although 18/169 (10.7%) participants with high anti-RBD titre (>100BAU/ml), show inhibition <75%. Higher RBD antibody-binding inhibition values are associated with hybrid immunity and reduced likelihood of infection (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid immunity in older adults was associated with considerably higher antibody titres, neutralisation and inhibition capacity. Instances of high anti-RBD titre with lower inhibition suggests antibody quantity and quality as independent potential correlates of protection, highlighting added value of measuring inhibition over antibody titre alone to inform vaccine strategy.

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

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

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

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

Automated detection of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in minutes using a competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has shown the importance of rapid and comprehensive diagnostic tools. While there are numerous rapid antigen tests available, rapid serological assays for the detection of neutralizing antibodies are and will be needed to determine not only the amount of antibodies formed after infection or vaccination but also their neutralizing potential, preventing the cell entry of SARS-CoV-2. Current active-virus neutralization assays require biosafety level 3 facilities, while virus-free surrogate assays are more versatile in applications, but still take typically several hours until results are available. To overcome these disadvantages, we developed a competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay that enables the detection of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies within 7 min. The neutralizing antibodies bind to the viral receptor binding domain (RBD) and inhibit the binding to the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. This competitive binding inhibition test was characterized with a set of 80 samples, which could all be classified correctly. The assay results favorably compare to those obtained with a more time-intensive ELISA-based neutralization test and a commercial surrogate neutralization assay. Our test could further be used to detect individuals with a high total IgG antibody titer, but only a low neutralizing titer, as well as for monitoring neutralizing antibodies after vaccinations. This effective performance in SARS-CoV-2 seromonitoring delineates the potential for the test to be adapted to other diseases in the future.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody progression and neutralizing potential in mild symptomatic COVID-19 patients – a comparative long term post-infection study

Background

Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has been keeping the world in suspense. Rapid tests, molecular diagnosis of acute infections, and vaccination campaigns with vaccines are building blocks of strategic pandemic control worldwide. For laboratory diagnostics, the quantification of the antibody titer of convalescents and vaccinated patients is thus increasingly coming to the fore.

Methods

Here we present an evaluation on the comparability of five serological tests on a cohort of 13 patients with mild COVID-19 disease. Also participants who were vaccinated after recovery were included in this study. All common immune methods (ELISA, CLIA, PETIA) and SARS-CoV-2 specific antigens (N-, S1- and RBD-) were specifically tracked and directly compared for up to 455 days. The titer of recovered participants was also set to the degree of symptoms during infection and the occurrence of Long-COVID. In addition, relative comparability of different serological tests, all standardized to WHO, was set in reference to the neutralizing potential of the corresponding participants.

Findings

The individual immune responses over 455 days after a mild SARS-CoV-2 infection remain stable, in contrast to vaccinated participants. All sero-tests reveal comparable performance and dynamics during the study and compared well to a surrogate neutralization test.

Conclusion

The information presented here will help clinicians in the daily laboratory work in the selection and evaluation of different serological tests offered. The data also will support in respect of a sero-test-based neutralization cutoff.