Comparison of the clinical performance and usefulness of five SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests

We examined the usefulness of five COVID-19 antibody detection tests using 114 serum samples at various time points from 34 Japanese COVID-19 patients. We examined Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 from Roche, and four immunochromatography tests from Hangzhou Laihe Biotech, Artron Laboratories, Chil, and Nadal. In the first week after onset, Elecsys had 40% positivity in Group S (severe cases) but was negative in Group M (mild-moderate cases). The immunochromatography kits showed 40–60% and 0–8% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. In the second week, Elecsys showed 75% and 50% positivity, and the immunochromatography tests showed 5–80% and 50–75% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. After the third week, Elecsys showed 100% positivity in both groups. The immunochromatography kits showed 100% positivity in Group S. In Group M, positivity decreased to 50% for Chil and 75–89% for Artron and Lyher. Elecsys and immunochromatography kits had 91–100% specificity. Elecsys had comparable chronological change of cut-off index values in the two groups from the second week to the sixth week. The current SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests do not provide meaningful interpretation of severity and infection status. Its use might be limited to short-term epidemiological studies

Increased SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and spread of infection without awareness among healthcare workers through 2020–2022 in a Japanese medical center

Abstract Despite Japan’s high vaccination coverage, daily numbers of new COVID-19 cases have been high. However, studies on the seroprevalence among Japanese people and the causative factors for rapid spread have remained limited. In this study, we aimed to examine the seroprevalence and associated factors in healthcare workers (HCWs) of a medical center in Tokyo using blood samples drawn at annual check-ups from 2020 to 2022. We found that of the 3,788 HCWs in 2022 (by mid-June), 669 were seropositive for N-specific antibodies (tested by Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay); the seroprevalence surged from 0.3% in 2020 and 1.6% in 2021 to 17.7% in 2022. Notably, our study found 325 (48.6%; 325/669) cases were infected without awareness. Among those with a previously PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the past three years, 79.0% (282/357) were found after January 2022, after the Omicron variant was first detected in Tokyo at the end of 2021. This study indicates the fast spread of the SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs during the Omicron surge in Japan. The high percentage of infection without awareness may be a key driving factor causing rapid person-to-person transmission, as shown in this medical center with high vaccination coverage and strict infection control measures

Performance evaluation of the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays by comparison with neutralizing antibodies and clinical assessment

Quantitative measurement of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies is highly expected to evaluate immune status, vaccine response, and antiviral therapy. The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Elecsys® anti-S) was developed to measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 S proteins. We sought to investigate whether Elecsys® anti-S can be used to predict neutralizing activities in patients’ serums using an authentic virus neutralization assay. One hundred forty-six serum samples were obtained from 59 patients with COVID-19 at multiple time points. Of the 59 patients, 44 cases were included in Group M (mild 23, moderate 21) and produced 84 samples (mild 35, moderate 49), while 15 cases were included in Group S (severe 11, critical 4) and produced 62 samples (severe 43, critical 19). The neutralization assay detected 73% positive cases, and Elecsys® anti-S and Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Elecsys® anti-N) showed 72% and 66% positive cases, respectively. A linear correlation between the Elecsys® anti-S assay and the neutralization assay were highly correlated (r = 0.7253, r2 = 0.5261) than a linear correlation between the Elecsys® anti-N and neutralization assay (r = 0.5824, r2 = 0.3392). The levels of Elecsys® anti-S antibody and neutralizing activities were significantly higher in Group S than in Group M after 6 weeks from onset of symptoms (p < 0.05). Conversely, the levels of Elecsys® anti-N were comparable in both groups. Three immunosuppressed patients, including cancer patients, showed low levels of anti-S and anti-N antibodies and neutralizing activities throughout the measurement period, indicating the need for careful follow-up. Our data indicate that Elecsys® anti-S can predict the neutralization antibodies in COVID-19

Assessment of antibody dynamics and neutralizing activity using serological assay after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

The COVID-19 antibody test was developed to investigate the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study, we examined whether S antibody titers measured using the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (S-IgG), a high-throughput test method, reflects the neutralizing capacity acquired after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. To assess the antibody dynamics and neutralizing potency, we utilized a total of 457 serum samples from 253 individuals: 325 samples from 128 COVID-19 patients including 136 samples from 29 severe/critical cases (Group S), 155 samples from 71 mild/moderate cases (Group M), and 132 samples from 132 health care workers (HCWs) who have received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccinations. The authentic virus neutralization assay, the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test (sVNT), and the Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (N-IgG) have been performed along with the S-IgG. The S-IgG correlated well with the neutralizing activity detected by the authentic virus neutralization assay (0.8904. of Spearman's rho value, p < 0.0001) and sVNT (0.9206. of Spearman's rho value, p < 0.0001). However, 4 samples (2.3%) of S-IgG and 8 samples (4.5%) of sVNT were inconsistent with negative results for neutralizing activity of the authentic virus neutralization assay. The kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and anti-S IgG in severe cases were faster than the mild cases. All the HCWs elicited anti-S IgG titer after the second vaccination. However, the HCWs with history of COVID-19 or positive N-IgG elicited higher anti-S IgG titers than those who did not have it previously. Furthermore, it is difficult to predict the risk of breakthrough infection from anti-S IgG or sVNT antibody titers in HCWs after the second vaccination. Our data shows that the use of anti-S IgG titers as direct quantitative markers of neutralizing capacity is limited. Thus, antibody tests should be carefully interpreted when used as serological markers for diagnosis, treatment, and prophylaxis of COVID-19