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.

Comparison of Elecsys and Liaison immunoassays to determine Epstein-Barr virus serological status using further diagnostic approaches to clarify discrepant results.

Serological markers for Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection are commonly used to diagnose infectious mononucleosis and establish a serological status in pretransplant patients. This study prospectively assessed 1043 serum specimens sent to the laboratory for physician-ordered EBV testing. The three markers-antiviral capsid antigen (VCA) immunoglobulin M (IgM), anti-VCA immunoglobulin G (IgG), and anti-Epstein-Barr nuclear antigen (EBNA) antibodies-were tested using the Elecsys and the Liaison immunoassays. Specimens with discrepant results between the two assays were assessed using further EBV diagnostic approaches to conclude on the EBV serological status. In spite of substantial agreement between the two assays (88%) and with the presumed EBV status (>92%), the results showed differences in the performance of the assays. Liaison VCA IgM appeared to be the most sensitive test for the detection of the 38 sera classified as early primary infection in comparison with the Elecsys assay (91.4% vs. 68.6%, p = 0.008). Excluding the cases of early primary infection, the sensitivity values of the VCA IgM marker were comparable between the Liaison and Elecsys assays (95.2% and 92.9%, respectively, p = 1). Concerning the sera classified as past infection (n = 763), the Elecsys assay showed higher sensitivity values for the detection of the VCA and EBNA IgG markers in comparison with the Liaison assay (99.9% and 99.7% vs. 97.4% and 91.2%, respectively, p < 0.001). Overall, the Elecsys and Liaison assays showed similar performance. The interpretation of EBV serological profiles based on the clinical context may require serology follow up or further diagnostic approaches in challenging cases.

[Use of « Reference change value ¼ in medical biology: about two examples: total PSA and hemoglobin]. / Utilisation de la « Reference change value ¼ en biologie médicale : à propos de deux exemples : PSA total et hémoglobine.

The interpretation of the variation between the results of two dosages performed on the same patient is generally quite empirical. It is usually based on the experience of the biologist or physician. Through two examples, total PSA and hemoglobin, we hoped to set up an indicator of the significance variation between results: The Reference change value or RCV to provide assistance to the validator biologist and prescriber based on measured statistical arguments. This article describes the methodology used for the RCV calculation, the formatting on analysis reports and the limitations of the system.

Multicenter quality control for the detection of hepatitis C virus RNA in seminal plasma specimens.

The discrepant results available in the literature about the presence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA in seminal plasma of men chronically infected by this agent are related, at least in part, to the molecular techniques used and particularly to the wide range of protocols dedicated to RNA extraction. In order to evaluate these protocols and to standardize the method of detection of HCV RNA in this fluid, a panel of coded specimens was tested blindly in 12 French laboratories; it included 14 seminal plasma specimens and four water controls spiked with HCV RNA ranging from 10 to 20000 IU/ml and two HCV-negative seminal plasma specimens. The extraction step was performed according to methods using either silica beads (NucliSens [Organon Teknika S.A., Fresnes, France]; RNA viral kit [Qiagen, Courtaboeuf, France]) or guanidinium thiocyanate (Amplicor HCV assay; Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France), preceded or not by a centrifugation of the seminal plasma. For the amplification step, all the laboratories performed the same reverse transcription-PCR technique (Amplicor HCV Cobas assay). The percentage of correct results ranged from 53.3 to 100, the poorest results being obtained when no centrifugation step preceded the Amplicor extraction protocol. The rate of correct results was significantly higher in laboratories using a preliminary centrifugation of the specimen (P = 0.034 by chi-square test). By contrast, the overall number of correct results was not correlated to the initial volume of sample used for the test. These results allowed us to validate standardized techniques adapted to the performance of this test on a routine basis, especially in men infected with HCV and involved in programs of medically assisted reproduction.