Anti-spike protein to determine SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels: Is there a specific threshold conferring protection in immunocompromised patients?

BACKGROUND: Identifying a specific threshold level of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that confers protection in immunocompromised patients has been very challenging. The aim was to assess the threshold of 264 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml using four different SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays (Abbott, Beckman, Roche, and Siemens) and to establish a new optimal threshold of protection for each of the four antibody assays. METHODS: This study was performed on data retrieved from 69 individuals, who received at least one dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax) at the Alphabio Laboratory in Marseille, France (European Hospital, Alphabio-Biogroup). The results were compared to the percent inhibition calculated using a functional surrogate of a standardized virus neutralization test (Genscript). RESULTS: Samples from 69 patients were analyzed. For a reference cutoff of 264 BAU/ml, assays showed moderate to good overall concordance with Genscript: 87% concordance for Abbott, 78% for Beckman, 75% for Roche, and 88% for Siemens. Overall concordance increased consistently after applying new thresholds, i.e., 148 BAU/ml (Abbott), 48 (Beckman), 559 (Roche), and 270 (Siemens). CONCLUSION: We suggest specific adjusted thresholds (BAU/ml) for the four commercial antibody assays that are used to assess pre-exposure prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients.

An optimized stepwise algorithm combining rapid antigen and RT-qPCR for screening of COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND & AIM: We investigated the combination of rapid antigen detection (RAD) and RT-qPCR assays in a stepwise procedure to optimize the detection of COVID-19. METHODS: From August 2020 to November 2020, 43,399 patients were screened in our laboratory for COVID-19 diagnostic by RT-qPCR using nasopharyngeal swab. Overall, 4,691 of the 43,399 were found to be positive, and 200 were retrieved for RAD testing allowing comparison of diagnostic accuracy between RAD and RT-qPCR. Cycle threshold (Ct) and time from symptoms onset (TSO) were included as covariates. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR-, and LR+ of RAD compared with RT-qPCR were 72% (95%CI 62%-81%), 99% (95% CI95%-100%), 99% (95%CI 93%-100%), and 78% (95%CI 70%-85%), 0.28 (95%CI 0.21-0.39), and 72 (95%CI 10-208) respectively. Sensitivity was higher for patients with Ct ≤ 25 regardless of TSO: TSO ≤ 4 days 92% (95%CI 75%-99%), TSO > 4 days 100% (95%CI 54%-100%), and asymptomatic 100% (95%CI 78-100%). Overall, combining RAD and RT-qPCR would allow reducing from only 4% the number of RT-qPCR needed. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the risk of misdiagnosing COVID-19 in 28% of patients if RAD is used alone. A stepwise analysis that combines RAD and RT-qPCR would be an efficient screening procedure for COVID-19 detection and may facilitate the control of the outbreak.