Longitudinal Serological Analysis and Neutralizing Antibody Levels in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Patients.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the longitudinal trajectory of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies is crucial for diagnosis of prior infection and predicting future immunity. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal analysis of coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent patients, with neutralizing antibody assays and SARS-CoV-2 serological assay platforms using SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) or nucleocapsid (N) antigens. RESULTS: Sensitivities of serological assays in diagnosing prior SARS-CoV-2 infection changed with time. One widely used commercial platform that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 71% at 81-100 days after diagnosis. The trajectories of median binding antibody titers measured over approximately 3-4 months were not dependent on the use of SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins as antigen. The median neutralization titer decreased by approximately 45% per month. Each serological assay gave quantitative antibody titers that were correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization titers, but S-based serological assay measurements better predicted neutralization potency. Correlation between S-binding and neutralization titers deteriorated with time, and decreases in neutralization titers were not predicted by changes in S-binding antibody titers. CONCLUSIONS: Different SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are more or less well suited for surveillance versus prediction of serum neutralization potency. Extended follow-up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serological correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

Longitudinal variation in SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and emergence of viral variants: a serological analysis.

BACKGROUND: Serological assays are being used to monitor antibody responses in individuals who had SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who received a COVID-19 vaccine. We aimed to determine whether such assays can predict neutralising antibody titres as antibody levels wane and viral variants emerge. METHODS: We measured antibody levels in serum samples from a cohort of 112 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection using ten high-throughput serological tests and functional neutralisation assays. Serum samples were taken at baseline and at up to four subsequent visits. We assessed the effects of time and spike protein sequence variation on the performance and predictive value of the various assays. We did correlation analyses for individual timepoints using non-parametric Spearman correlation, and differences between timepoints were determined by use of a two-tailed Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. FINDINGS: Neutralising antibody titres decreased over the first few months post-infection but stabilised thereafter, at about 30% of the level observed shortly after infection. Serological assays commonly used to measure antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 displayed a range of sensitivities that declined to varying extents over time. Quantitative measurements generated by serological assays based on the spike protein were better at predicting neutralising antibody titres than those based on nucleocapsid, but performance was variable, and manufacturer positivity thresholds were not able to predict the presence or absence of detectable neutralising activity. Although we observed some deterioration in correlation between serological measurements and functional neutralisation activity, some assays maintained an ability to predict neutralising titres, even against variants of concern. INTERPRETATION: The ability of high-throughput serological assays to predict neutralising antibody titres is likely to be crucial for evaluation of immunity at the population scale. These data can facilitate the selection of the most suitable assays as surrogates of functional neutralising activity and suggest that such measurements might be useful in clinical practice. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and National Health Service Research Scotland BioResource.

Lithium heparin interference in the Abbott enzymatic creatinine assay: the significance of under-filled tubes.

BACKGROUND: Spuriously high results using the Abbott Architect enzymatic creatinine assay were noted to be particularly associated with very small sample volumes. This led us to query the effect of under-filling lithium heparin tubes on the measured enzymatic creatinine result. METHODS: Blood was provided by 5 laboratory personnel and then decanted into 5 x1.2 mL Sarstedt S-Monovette tubes, giving final blood volumes of 200, 400, 600, 800 and 1200 µL. Plasma was analysed using Abbott Architect Jaffe, enzymatic creatinine, Beckman Coulter (AU500) enzymatic creatinine and Roche (Cobas c702) enzymatic creatinine assays. Saline was also added to Sarstedt 1.2 mL and Teklab 2 mL tubes and analysed using the Abbott Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine methods. RESULTS: Increasing degrees of under-fill were associated with greater over-estimation of creatinine using the Abbott enzymatic assay, but no difference was noted using Jaffe methodology on the same platform or enzymatic assays provided by Roche or Beckman. On average, creatinine was 40.6% (+27.7 µmol/L) higher when only 200 µL of blood was present in the tube. Small volumes of saline added to lithium heparin tubes measured significant creatinine concentrations using the Abbott enzymatic method. CONCLUSIONS: Lithium heparin directly interferes in the Abbott Architect enzymatic creatinine assay. Under-filling lithium heparin tubes can lead to clinically significant over-estimation of creatinine results by this assay. Users of this assay should be aware of the potential for spurious results in small sample volumes collected into lithium heparin tubes and implement robust procedures for identifying and reporting results on these samples.

Longitudinal variation in SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and emergence of viral variants: implications for the ability of serological assays to predict immunity.

BACKGROUND: Serological assays are being deployed to monitor antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 convalescents and vaccine recipients. There is a need to determine whether such assays can predict immunity, as antibody levels wane and viral variants emerge. METHODS: We measured antibodies in a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients using several high-throughput serological tests and functional neutralization assays. The effects of time and spike protein sequence variation on the performance and predictive value of the various assays was assessed. FINDINGS: Neutralizing antibody titers decreased over the first few months post-infection but stabilized thereafter, at about 30% of the level observed shortly after infection. Serological assays commonly used to measure antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 displayed a range of sensitivities that declined to varying extents over time. Quantitative measurements generated by serological assays based on the spike protein were better at predicting neutralizing antibody titers than assays based on nucleocapsid, but performance was variable and manufacturer positivity thresholds were not able to predict the presence or absence of detectable neutralizing activity. Even though there was some deterioration in correlation between serological measurements and functional neutralization activity, some assays maintained an ability to predict neutralizing titers, even against variants of concern. INTERPRETATION: The ability of high throughput serological assays to predict neutralizing antibody titers is likely crucial for evaluation of immunity at the population scale. These data will facilitate the selection of the most suitable assays as surrogates of functional neutralizing activity and suggest that such measurements may have utility in clinical practice.

Longitudinal analysis of clinical serology assay performance and neutralising antibody levels in COVID19 convalescents.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with time Design Retrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort . Setting NHS outpatient clinics Participants Individuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalization Main outcome measures The sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed. Results The three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.