Increasing test specificity without impairing sensitivity: lessons learned from SARS-CoV-2 serology

Background: Serological tests are widely used in various medical disciplines for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Unfortunately, the sensitivity and specificity of test systems are often poor, leaving room for false-positive and false-negative results. However, conventional methods were used to increase specificity and decrease sensitivity and vice versa. Using SARS-CoV-2 serology as an example, we propose here a novel testing strategy: the € sensitivity improved two-test' or € SIT²' algorithm. Methods: SIT² involves confirmatory retesting of samples with results falling in a predefined retesting zone of an initial screening test, with adjusted cut-offs to increase sensitivity. We verified and compared the performance of SIT² to single tests and orthogonal testing (OTA) in an Austrian cohort (1117 negative, 64 post-COVID-positive samples) and validated the algorithm in an independent British cohort (976 negatives and 536 positives). Results: The specificity of SIT² was superior to single tests and non-inferior to OTA. The sensitivity was maintained or even improved using SIT² when compared with single tests or OTA. SIT² allowed correct identification of infected individuals even when a live virus neutralisation assay could not detect antibodies. Compared with single testing or OTA, SIT² significantly reduced total test errors to 0.46% (0.24-0.65) or 1.60% (0.94-2.38) at both 5% or 20% seroprevalence. Conclusion: For SARS-CoV-2 serology, SIT² proved to be the best diagnostic choice at both 5% and 20% seroprevalence in all tested scenarios. It is an easy to apply algorithm and can potentially be helpful for the serology of other infectious diseases

Convalescent plasma therapy for the treatment of patients with COVID‐19: Assessment of methods available for antibody detection and their correlation with neutralising antibody levels

Introduction The lack of approved specific therapeutic agents to treat coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection has led to the rapid implementation of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) trials in many countries, including the United Kingdom. Effective CPT is likely to require high titres of neutralising antibody (nAb) in convalescent donations. Understanding the relationship between functional neutralising antibodies and antibody levels to specific SARS‐CoV‐2 proteins in scalable assays will be crucial for the success of a large‐scale collection. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with reactivity in a range of enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) targeting the spike (S) protein, the main target for human immune response. Methods Blood samples were collected from 52 individuals with a previous laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. These were assayed for SARS‐CoV‐2 nAbs by microneutralisation and pseudo‐type assays and for antibodies by four different ELISAs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to further identify sensitivity and specificity of selected assays to identify samples containing high nAb levels. Results All samples contained SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies, whereas neutralising antibody titres of greater than 1:20 were detected in 43 samples (83% of those tested) and >1:100 in 22 samples (42%). The best correlations were observed with EUROimmun immunoglobulin G (IgG) reactivity (Spearman Rho correlation coefficient 0.88; p 1:100 with 100% specificity using a reactivity index of 9.1 (13/22). Discussion Robust associations between nAb titres and reactivity in several ELISA‐based antibody tests demonstrate their possible utility for scaled‐up production of convalescent plasma containing potentially therapeutic levels of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 nAbs

A haemagglutination test for rapid detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2

Serological detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is essential for establishing rates of seroconversion in populations, and for seeking evidence for a level of antibody that may be protective against COVID-19 disease. Several high-performance commercial tests have been described, but these require centralised laboratory facilities that are comparatively expensive, and therefore not available universally. Red cell agglutination tests do not require special equipment, are read by eye, have short development times, low cost and can be applied at the Point of Care. Here we describe a quantitative Haemagglutination test (HAT) for the detection of antibodies to the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The HAT has a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 99% for detection of antibodies after a PCR diagnosed infection. We will supply aliquots of the test reagent sufficient for ten thousand test wells free of charge to qualified research groups anywhere in the world

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Convalescent plasma therapy for the treatment of patients with COVID‐19: Assessment of methods available for antibody detection and their correlation with neutralising antibody levels

Introduction The lack of approved specific therapeutic agents to treat coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection has led to the rapid implementation of convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) trials in many countries, including the United Kingdom. Effective CPT is likely to require high titres of neutralising antibody (nAb) in convalescent donations. Understanding the relationship between functional neutralising antibodies and antibody levels to specific SARS‐CoV‐2 proteins in scalable assays will be crucial for the success of a large‐scale collection. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with reactivity in a range of enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) targeting the spike (S) protein, the main target for human immune response. Methods Blood samples were collected from 52 individuals with a previous laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. These were assayed for SARS‐CoV‐2 nAbs by microneutralisation and pseudo‐type assays and for antibodies by four different ELISAs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to further identify sensitivity and specificity of selected assays to identify samples containing high nAb levels. Results All samples contained SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies, whereas neutralising antibody titres of greater than 1:20 were detected in 43 samples (83% of those tested) and >1:100 in 22 samples (42%). The best correlations were observed with EUROimmun immunoglobulin G (IgG) reactivity (Spearman Rho correlation coefficient 0.88; p 1:100 with 100% specificity using a reactivity index of 9.1 (13/22). Discussion Robust associations between nAb titres and reactivity in several ELISA‐based antibody tests demonstrate their possible utility for scaled‐up production of convalescent plasma containing potentially therapeutic levels of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 nAbs

A haemagglutination test for rapid detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2

ABSTRACT Serological detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is essential for establishing rates of seroconversion in populations, detection of seroconversion after vaccination, and for seeking evidence for a level of antibody that may be protective against COVID-19 disease. Several high-performance commercial tests have been described, but these require centralised laboratory facilities that are comparatively expensive, and therefore not available universally. Red cell agglutination tests have a long history in blood typing, and general serology through linkage of reporter molecules to the red cell surface. They do not require special equipment, are read by eye, have short development times, low cost and can be applied as a Point of Care Test (POCT). We describe a red cell agglutination test for the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD). We show that the Haemagglutination Test (“HAT”) has a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 99% for detection of antibodies after a PCR diagnosed infection. The HAT can be titrated, detects rising titres in the first five days of hospital admission, correlates well with a commercial test that detects antibodies to the RBD, and can be applied as a point of care test. The developing reagent is composed of a previously described nanobody to a conserved glycophorin A epitope on red cells, linked to the RBD from SARS-CoV-2. It can be lyophilised for ease of shipping. We have scaled up production of this reagent to one gram, which is sufficient for ten million tests, at a cost of ∼0.27 UK pence per test well. Aliquots of this reagent are ready to be supplied to qualified groups anywhere in the world that need to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, but do not have the facilities for high throughput commercial tests

Performance characteristics of five immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2: a head-to-head benchmark comparison

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic in 2020. Testing is crucial for mitigating public health and economic effects. Serology is considered key to population-level surveillance and potentially individual-level risk assessment. However, immunoassay performance has not been compared on large, identical sample sets. We aimed to investigate the performance of four high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays and a novel 384-well ELISA.We did a head-to-head assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), SARS-CoV-2 Total assay (Siemens, Munich, Germany), and a novel 384-well ELISA (the Oxford immunoassay). We derived sensitivity and specificity from 976 pre-pandemic blood samples (collected between Sept 4, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016) and 536 blood samples from patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, collected at least 20 days post symptom onset (collected between Feb 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess assay thresholds.At the manufacturers' thresholds, for the Abbott assay sensitivity was 92·7% (95% CI 90·2–94·8) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4–100%); for the DiaSorin assay sensitivity was 96·2% (94·2–97·7) and specificity was 98·9% (98·0–99·4); for the Oxford immunoassay sensitivity was 99·1% (97·8–99·7) and specificity was 99·0% (98·1–99·5); for the Roche assay sensitivity was 97·2% (95·4–98·4) and specificity was 99·8% (99·3–100); and for the Siemens assay sensitivity was 98·1% (96·6–99·1) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4–100%). All assays achieved a sensitivity of at least 98% with thresholds optimised to achieve a specificity of at least 98% on samples taken 30 days or more post symptom onset.Four commercial, widely available assays and a scalable 384-well ELISA can be used for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing to achieve sensitivity and specificity of at least 98%. The Siemens assay and Oxford immunoassay achieved these metrics without further optimisation. This benchmark study in immunoassay assessment should enable refinements of testing strategies and the best use of serological testing resource to benefit individuals and population health.Public Health England and UK National Institute for Health Research

Additional file 2 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 2. Email invitation

Additional file 7 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 7. Sensitivity analyses: various meta-analytic approaches

Additional file 1 of Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Additional file 1. Search strategy