Estimating SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Canadian Blood Donors, April 2020 to March 2021: Improving Accuracy with Multiple Assays

Evaluation of commercial assays for the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Hemodialysis patients exhibit variable immunogenicity following administration of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the use of two commercial assays in the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in hemodialysis patients and to compare their utility to commonly used SARS-CoV-2 serological assays developed in Canada.

METHODS

We evaluated serologic antibody response in 85 hemodialysis patients up to 6 months after receiving both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. In addition, antibody response was assessed in 46 chronic kidney disease patients and 40 COVID-19 naïve health care workers (HCW) up to 3 months and 9 months, respectively. Anti-spike (S) and anti-nucleocapsid (N) levels were measured using Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays on the Roche analyzer and compared to ELISA-based detection of anti-S, anti-receptor binding domain (RBD), and anti-N.

RESULTS

The Elecsys anti-N immunoassay showed 93 % concordance with the anti-N ELISA. The Elecsys anti-S immunoassay showed 97 % concordance with the anti-S ELISA and 89 % concordance with the anti-RBD ELISA. HCWs exhibited significantly higher anti-S levels relative to hemodialysis patients. Anti-S levels decreased significantly over a 6-month period (p < 0.001) in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. In addition, anti-S levels decreased significantly over a 9-month (p < 0.001) and 3-month period (p < 0.001) in HCWs and CKD patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high concordance between commercial SARS-CoV-2 serological assays and SARS-CoV-2 serological assays developed in Canada. Hemodialysis patients exhibited varying immunogenicity following two doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine with anti-S levels decreasing over time.

Diminished Neutralization Capacity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 in Donor Plasma Collected from January to March 2021

The 50% plaque reduction neutralization assay (PRNT50) has been previously used to assess the neutralization capacity of donor plasma against wild-type and variant of concern (VOC) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Emerging data suggest that plasma with an anti-SARS-CoV-2 level of ≥2 × 104 binding antibody units/mL (BAU/mL) protects against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 infection. Specimens were collected using a cross-sectional random sampling approach. For PRNT50 studies, 63 previously analyzed specimens by PRNT50 versus SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta were analyzed by PRNT50 versus Omicron BA.1. The 63 specimens plus 4,390 specimens (randomly sampled regardless of serological evidence of infection) were also tested using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (anti-spike [S]; Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA; Abbott Quant assay). In the vaccinated group, the percentages of specimens with any measurable PRNT50 versus wild-type or VOC were wild type (21/25 [84%]), Alpha (19/25 [76%]), Beta (18/25 [72%]), Gamma (13/25 [52%]), Delta (19/25 [76%]), and Omicron BA.1 (9/25 [36%]). In the unvaccinated group, the percentages of specimens with any measurable PRNT50 versus wild type or VOC were wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (16/39 [41%]), Alpha (16/39 [41%]), Beta (10/39 [26%]), Gamma (9/39 [23%]), Delta (16/39 [41%]), and Omicron BA.1 (0/39) (Fisher's exact tests, vaccinated versus unvaccinated for each variant, P < 0.05). None of the 4,453 specimens tested by the Abbott Quant assay had a binding capacity of ≥2 × 104 BAU/mL. Vaccinated donors were more likely than unvaccinated donors to neutralize Omicron when assessed by a PRNT50 assay. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 Omicron emergence occurred in Canada during the period from November 2021 to January 2022. This study assessed the ability of donor plasma collected earlier (January to March 2021) to generate any neutralizing capacity against Omicron BA.1 SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinated individuals, regardless of infection status, were more likely to neutralize Omicron BA.1 than unvaccinated individuals. This study then used a semiquantitative binding antibody assay to screen a larger number of specimens (4,453) for individual specimens that might have high-titer neutralizing capacity against Omicron BA.1. None of the 4,453 specimens tested by the semiquantitative SARS-CoV-2 assay had a binding capacity suggestive of a high-titer neutralizing capacity against Omicron BA.1. These data do not imply that Canadians lacked immunity to Omicron BA.1 during the study period. Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is complex, and there is still no wide consensus on correlation of protection to SARS-CoV-2.

Monitoring the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Prevalence of Antibodies in a Large, Repetitive Cross-Sectional Study of Blood Donors in Germany—Results from the SeBluCo Study 2020–2022

SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance is important to adapt infection control measures and estimate the degree of underreporting. Blood donor samples can be used as a proxy for the healthy adult population. In a repeated cross-sectional study from April 2020 to April 2021, September 2021, and April/May 2022, 13 blood establishments collected 134,510 anonymised specimens from blood donors in 28 study regions across Germany. These were tested for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid, including neutralising capacity. Seroprevalence was adjusted for test performance and sampling and weighted for demographic differences between the sample and the general population. Seroprevalence estimates were compared to notified COVID-19 cases. The overall adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence remained below 2% until December 2020 and increased to 18.1% in April 2021, 89.4% in September 2021, and to 100% in April/May 2022. Neutralising capacity was found in 74% of all positive specimens until April 2021 and in 98% in April/May 2022. Our serosurveillance allowed for repeated estimations of underreporting from the early stage of the pandemic onwards. Underreporting ranged between factors 5.1 and 1.1 in the first two waves of the pandemic and remained well below 2 afterwards, indicating an adequate test strategy and notification system in Germany.

Utilization of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay To Identify High-Titer Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Plasma against Wild-Type and Variant SARS-CoV-2 Viruses

There is evidence that COVID-19 convalescent plasma may improve outcomes of patients with impaired immune systems; however, more clinical trials are required. Although we have previously used a 50% plaque reduction/neutralization titer (PRNT₅₀) assay to qualify convalescent plasma for clinical trials and virus-like particle (VLP) assays to validate PRNT₅₀ methodologies, these approaches are time-consuming and expensive. Here, we characterized the ability of the Abbott severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG II Quant assay to identify high- and low-titer plasma for wild-type and variant (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta) SARS-CoV-2 characterized by both VLP assays and PRNT₅₀. Plasma specimens previously tested in wild-type, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta VLP neutralization assays were selected based on availability. Selected specimens were evaluated by the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay [Abbott anti-Spike (S); Abbott, Chicago, IL], and values in units per milliliter were converted to binding antibody units (BAU) per milliliter. Sixty-three specimens were available for analysis. Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay values in BAU per milliliter were significantly different between high- and low-titer specimens for wild-type (Mann-Whitney U = 42, P < 0.0001), Alpha (Mann-Whitney U = 38, P < 0.0001), Beta (Mann-Whitney U = 29, P < 0.0001), Gamma (Mann-Whitney U = 0, P < 0.0001), and Delta (Mann-Whitney U = 42, P < 0.0001). A conservative approach using the highest 95% confidence interval (CI) values from wild-type and variant of concern (VOC) SARS-CoV-2 experiments would identify a potential Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay cutoff of ≥7.1 × 10³ BAU/mL. IMPORTANCE The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to treat hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in August 2020. However, by 4 February 2021, the FDA had revised the convalescent plasma EUA. This revision limited the authorization for high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma and restricted patient groups to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 early in their disease course or hospitalized patients with impaired humoral immunity. Traditionally our group utilized 50% plaque reduction/neutralization titer (PRNT₅₀) assays to qualify CCP in Canada. Since that time, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott, Chicago IL) was developed for the qualitative and quantitative determination of IgG against the SARS-CoV-2. Here, we characterized the ability of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay to identify high- and low-titer plasma for wild-type and variant (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta) SARS-CoV-2.

Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic and How Blood Operators Can Prepare for the Next Pandemic

Humans interact with virus-infected animal hosts, travel globally, and maintain social networks that allow for novel viruses to emerge and develop pandemic potential. There are key lessons-learned from the coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that blood operators can apply to the next pandemic. Warning signals to the COVID-19 pandemic included outbreaks of Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-1 (SARS-CoV-1) and Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in the prior two decades. It will be critical to quickly determine whether there is a risk of blood-borne transmission of a new pandemic virus. Prior to the next pandemic blood operators should be prepared for changes in activities, policies, and procedures at all levels of the organization. Blood operators can utilize “Plan-Do-Study-Act” cycles spanning from: vigilance for emerging viruses, surveillance activities and studies, operational continuity, donor engagement and trust, and laboratory testing if required. Occupational health and donor safety issues will be key areas of focus even if the next pandemic virus is not transfusion transmitted. Blood operators may also be requested to engage in new activities such as the development of therapeutics or supporting public health surveillance activities. Activities such as scenario development, tabletop exercises, and drills will allow blood operators to prepare for the unknowns of the next pandemic.

A scalable serology solution for profiling humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

Objectives

Antibody testing against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has been instrumental in detecting previous exposures and analyzing vaccine‐elicited immune responses. Here, we describe a scalable solution to detect and quantify SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies, discriminate between natural infection‐ and vaccination‐induced responses, and assess antibody‐mediated inhibition of the spike‐angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) interaction.

Methods

We developed methods and reagents to detect SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The main assays focus on the parallel detection of immunoglobulin (Ig)Gs against the spike trimer, its receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid (N). We automated a surrogate neutralisation (sn)ELISA that measures inhibition of ACE2‐spike or ‐RBD interactions by antibodies. The assays were calibrated to a World Health Organization reference standard.

Results

Our single‐point IgG‐based ELISAs accurately distinguished non‐infected and infected individuals. For seroprevalence assessment (in a non‐vaccinated cohort), classifying a sample as positive if antibodies were detected for ≥ 2 of the 3 antigens provided the highest specificity. In vaccinated cohorts, increases in anti‐spike and ‐RBD (but not ‐N) antibodies are observed. We present detailed protocols for serum/plasma or dried blood spots analysis performed manually and on automated platforms. The snELISA can be performed automatically at single points, increasing its scalability.

Conclusions

Measuring antibodies to three viral antigens and identify neutralising antibodies capable of disrupting spike‐ACE2 interactions in high‐throughput enables large‐scale analyses of humoral immune responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and vaccination. The reagents are available to enable scaling up of standardised serological assays, permitting inter‐laboratory data comparison and aggregation.