Use of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Tests by US Infectious Disease Physicians: Results of an Emerging Infections Network Survey, March 2022.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests have had limited recommended clinical application during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To inform clinical practice, an understanding is needed of current perspectives of United States-based infectious disease (ID) physicians on the use, interpretation, and need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Methods: In March 2022, members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a national network of practicing ID physicians, were surveyed on types of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays ordered, interpretation of test results, and clinical scenarios for which antibody tests were considered. Results: Of 1867 active EIN members, 747 (40%) responded. Among the 583 who managed or consulted on COVID-19 patients, a majority (434/583 [75%]) had ordered SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and were comfortable interpreting positive (452/578 [78%]) and negative (405/562 [72%]) results. Antibody tests were used for diagnosing post-COVID-19 conditions (61%), identifying prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (60%), and differentiating prior infection and response to COVID-19 vaccination (37%). Less than a third of respondents had used antibody tests to assess need for additional vaccines or risk stratification. Lack of sufficient evidence for use and nonstandardized assays were among the most common barriers for ordering tests. Respondents indicated that statements from professional societies and government agencies would influence their decision to order SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for clinical decision making. Conclusions: Practicing ID physicians are using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, and there is an unmet need for clarifying the appropriate use of these tests in clinical practice. Professional societies and US government agencies can support clinicians in the community through the creation of appropriate guidance.

SARS-CoV-2 Convalescent Sera Binding and Neutralizing Antibody Concentrations Compared with COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Estimates against Symptomatic Infection.

Previous COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) studies have estimated neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations that correlate with protection from symptomatic infection; how these estimates compare to those generated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unclear. Here, we assessed quantitative neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations using standardized SARS-CoV-2 assays on 3,067 serum specimens collected during 27 July 2020 to 27 August 2020 from COVID-19-unvaccinated persons with detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations were severalfold lower in the unvaccinated study population compared to published concentrations at 28 days postvaccination. In this convenience sample, ~88% of neutralizing and ~63 to 86% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 70% COVID-19 VE against symptomatic infection; ~30% of neutralizing and 1 to 14% of binding antibody concentrations met or exceeded concentrations associated with 90% COVID-19 VE. Our study not only supports observations of infection-induced immunity and current recommendations for vaccination postinfection to maximize protection against COVID-19, but also provides a large data set of pre-COVID-19 vaccination anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations that will serve as an important comparator in the current setting of vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity. As new SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge and displace circulating virus strains, we recommend that standardized binding antibody assays that include spike protein-based antigens be utilized to estimate antibody concentrations correlated with protection from COVID-19. These estimates will be helpful in informing public health guidance, such as the need for additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses to prevent symptomatic infection. IMPORTANCE Although COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) studies have estimated antibody concentrations that correlate with protection from COVID-19, how these estimates compare to those generated in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is unclear. We assessed quantitative neutralizing and binding antibody concentrations using standardized assays on serum specimens collected from COVID-19-unvaccinated persons with detectable antibodies. We found that most unvaccinated persons with qualitative antibody evidence of prior infection had quantitative antibody concentrations that met or exceeded concentrations associated with 70% VE against COVID-19. However, only a small proportion had antibody concentrations that met or exceeded concentrations associated with 90% VE, suggesting that persons with prior COVID-19 would benefit from vaccination to maximize protective antibody concentrations against COVID-19.

Evaluation of a Multiplex Bead Assay against Single-Target Assays for Detection of IgG Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

Serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies must be validated for performance with a large panel of clinical specimens. Most existing assays utilize a single antigen target and may be subject to reduced diagnostic specificity. This study evaluated a multiplex assay that detects antibodies to three SARS-CoV-2 targets. Human serum specimens (n = 323) with known previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure status were tested on a commercially available multiplex bead assay (MBA) measuring IgG to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD), nucleocapsid protein (NP), and RBD/NP fusion antigens. Assay performance was evaluated against reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) results and also compared with test results for two single-target commercial assays. The MBA had a diagnostic sensitivity of 89.8% and a specificity of 100%, with serum collection at >28 days following COVID-19 symptom onset showing the highest seropositivity rates (sensitivity: 94.7%). The MBA performed comparably to single-target assays with the ability to detect IgG against specific antigen targets, with 19 (5.9%) discrepant specimens compared to the NP IgG assay and 12 (3.7%) compared to the S1 RBD IgG assay (kappa coefficients 0.92 and 0.88 compared to NP IgG and S1 RBD IgG assays, respectively. These findings highlight inherent advantages of using a SARS-CoV-2 serological test with multiple antigen targets; specifically, the ability to detect IgG against RBD and NP antigens simultaneously. In particular, the 100.0% diagnostic specificity exhibited by the MBA in this study is important for its implementation in populations with low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence or where background antibody reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 antigens has been detected. IMPORTANCE Reporting of SARS-CoV-2 infections through nucleic acid or antigen based diagnostic tests severely underestimates the true burden of exposure in a population. Serological data assaying for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens offers an alternative source of data to estimate population exposure, but most current immunoassays only include a single target for antibody detection. This report outlines a direct comparison of a multiplex bead assay to two other commercial single-target assays in their ability to detect IgG against SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Against a well-defined panel of 323 serum specimens, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were very high for the multiplex assay, with strong agreement in IgG detection for single targets compared to the single-target assays. Collection of more data for individual- and population-level seroprofiles allows further investigation into more accurate exposure estimates and research into the determinants of infection and convalescent responses.

A Trans-Governmental Collaboration to Independently Evaluate SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 created a crucial need for serology assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which led to many serology assays entering the market. A trans-government collaboration was created in April 2020 to independently evaluate the performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays and help inform U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory decisions. To assess assay performance, three evaluation panels with similar antibody titer distributions were assembled. Each panel consisted of 110 samples with positive (n = 30) serum samples with a wide range of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers and negative (n = 80) plasma and/or serum samples that were collected before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Each sample was characterized for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against the spike protein using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). Samples were selected for the panel when there was agreement on seropositivity by laboratories at National Cancer Institute's Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (NCI-FNLCR) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The sensitivity and specificity of each assay were assessed to determine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) suitability. As of January 8, 2021, results from 91 evaluations were made publicly available (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html). Sensitivity ranged from 27% to 100% for IgG (n = 81), from 10% to 100% for IgM (n = 74), and from 73% to 100% for total or pan-immunoglobulins (n = 5). The combined specificity ranged from 58% to 100% (n = 91). Approximately one-third (n = 27) of the assays evaluated are now authorized by FDA for emergency use. This collaboration established a framework for assay performance evaluation that could be used for future outbreaks and could serve as a model for other technologies. IMPORTANCE The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic created a crucial need for accurate serology assays to evaluate seroprevalence and antiviral immune responses. The initial flood of serology assays entering the market with inadequate performance emphasized the need for independent evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays using performance evaluation panels to determine suitability for use under EUA. Through a government-wide collaborative network, 91 commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assay evaluations were performed. Three evaluation panels with similar overall antibody titer distributions were assembled to evaluate performance. Nearly one-third of the assays evaluated met acceptable performance recommendations, and two assays had EUAs revoked and were removed from the U.S. market based on inadequate performance. Data for all serology assays evaluated are available at the FDA and CDC websites (https://open.fda.gov/apis/device/covid19serology/, and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/serology-surveillance/serology-test-evaluation.html).

Mapping SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Epitopes in COVID-19 Patients with a Multi-Coronavirus Protein Microarray.

The rapid worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 has accelerated research and development for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. A multi-coronavirus protein microarray was created containing full-length proteins, overlapping protein fragments of various lengths, and peptide libraries from SARS-CoV-2 and four other human coronaviruses. Sera from confirmed COVID-19 patients as well as unexposed individuals were applied to multicoronavirus arrays to identify specific antibody reactivity. High-level IgG, IgM, and IgA reactivity to structural proteins S, M, and N of SARS-CoV-2, as well as accessory proteins such as ORF3a and ORF7a, were observed that were specific to COVID-19 patients. Antibody reactivity against overlapping 100-, 50-, and 30-amino acid fragments of SARS-CoV-2 proteins was used to identify antigenic regions. Numerous proteins of SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and the endemic human coronaviruses HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 were also more reactive with IgG, IgM, and IgA in COVID-19 patient sera than in unexposed control sera, providing further evidence of immunologic cross-reactivity between these viruses. Whereas unexposed individuals had minimal reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 proteins that poorly correlated with reactivity against HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 S2 and N proteins, COVID-19 patient sera had higher correlation between SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV responses, suggesting that de novo antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross-react with HCoV epitopes. Array responses were compared with validated spike protein-specific IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), showing agreement between orthologous methods. SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization titers were low in the COVID-19 patient sera but correlated with array responses against S and N proteins. The multi-coronavirus protein microarray is a useful tool for mapping antibody reactivity in COVID-19 patients. IMPORTANCE With novel mutant SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern on the rise, knowledge of immune specificities against SARS-CoV-2 proteins is increasingly important for understanding the impact of structural changes in antibody-reactive protein epitopes on naturally acquired and vaccine-induced immunity, as well as broader topics of cross-reactivity and viral evolution. A multi-coronavirus protein microarray used to map the binding of COVID-19 patient antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 proteins and protein fragments as well as to the proteins of four other coronaviruses that infect humans has shown specific regions of SARS-CoV-2 proteins that are highly reactive with patient antibodies and revealed cross-reactivity of these antibodies with other human coronaviruses. These data and the multi-coronavirus protein microarray tool will help guide further studies of the antibody response to COVID-19 and to vaccination against this worldwide pandemic.

High-throughput quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a single-dilution homogeneous assay.

SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and has since spread around the world, causing a pandemic of the respiratory disease COVID-19. Detecting antibodies against the virus is an essential tool for tracking infections and developing vaccines. Such tests, primarily utilizing the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) principle, can be either qualitative (reporting positive/negative results) or quantitative (reporting a value representing the quantity of specific antibodies). Quantitation is vital for determining stability or decline of antibody titers in convalescence, efficacy of different vaccination regimens, and detection of asymptomatic infections. Quantitation typically requires two-step ELISA testing, in which samples are first screened in a qualitative assay and positive samples are subsequently analyzed as a dilution series. To overcome the throughput limitations of this approach, we developed a simpler and faster system that is highly automatable and achieves quantitation in a single-dilution screening format with sensitivity and specificity comparable to those of ELISA.