Supplemental Material - SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence screening study of a children’s hospital health care workers

Supplemental Material for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence screening study of a children’s hospital health care workers by Olivia Pluss, Stephen Berman, Molly Lamb, Vijaya Knight, Yannik Roell, Steven Berkowitz, and Thomas Jaenisch in Journal of Infection Prevention</p

Supplemental Material - SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence screening study of a children’s hospital health care workers

Supplemental Material for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence screening study of a children’s hospital health care workers by Olivia Pluss, Stephen Berman, Molly Lamb, Vijaya Knight, Yannik Roell, Steven Berkowitz, and Thomas Jaenisch in Journal of Infection Prevention</p

Flow chart of literature search and screening results.

Flow chart of literature search and screening results.</p

Description of maps utilized within the exploratory data analysis of clusters.

Description of maps utilized within the exploratory data analysis of clusters.</p

Fig 2 -

(A) Global study locations with sample size and serological assay group (NTs–neutralization tests and Other) and showing greater detail for (B) the Americas, (C) Africa, and (D) Asia. The world administrative boundary basemap is fromhttps://public.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/world-administrative-boundaries/.</p

Fig 4 -

(A) Global distribution of vulnerability for ZIKV with environmental suitability depicted and showing greater detail for (B) the Americas, (C) Africa, and (D) Asia. The environmental suitability map is from Messina, Kraemer [17] and the world administrative boundary basemap is fromhttps://public.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/world-administrative-boundaries/.</p

Division of vulnerability based on the difference between seroprevalence and environmental suitability.

Division of vulnerability based on the difference between seroprevalence and environmental suitability.</p

Data_Sheet_1_Harmonization of Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Reference Materials Using the WHO IS (NIBSC 20/136): Results and Implications.zip

BackgroundThere is an urgent need for harmonization between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology platforms and assays prior to defining appropriate correlates of protection and as well inform the development of new rapid diagnostic tests that can be used for serosurveillance as new variants of concern (VOC) emerge. We compared multiple SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials to the WHO International Standard (WHO IS) to determine their utility as secondary standards, using an international network of laboratories with high-throughput quantitative serology assays. This enabled the comparison of quantitative results between multiple serology platforms.MethodsBetween April and December 2020, 13 well-characterized and validated SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials were recruited from six different providers to qualify as secondary standards to the WHO IS. All the samples were tested in parallel with the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) 20/136 and parallel-line assays were used to calculate the relevant potency and binding antibody units.ResultsAll the samples saw varying levels of concordance between diagnostic methods at specific antigen–antibody combinations. Seven of the 12 candidate materials had high concordance for the spike-immunoglobulin G (IgG) analyte [percent coefficient of variation (%CV) between 5 and 44%].ConclusionDespite some concordance between laboratories, qualification of secondary materials to the WHO IS using arbitrary international units or binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/ml) does not provide any benefit to the reference materials overall, due to the lack of consistent agreeable international unit (IU) or BAU/ml conversions between laboratories. Secondary standards should be qualified to well-characterized reference materials, such as the WHO IS, using serology assays that are similar to the ones used for the original characterization of the WHO IS.</p