Evaluation of commercial Anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody assays in seropositive subjects

International audienceThe virus neutralization test (VNT) is the reference for the assessment of the functional ability of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) to block SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. New competitive immunoassays measuring antibodies preventing interaction between the spike protein and its cellular receptor are proposed as surrogate VNT (sVNT). We tested three commercial sVNT (a qualitative immunochromatographic test and two quantitative immunoassays named YHLO and TECO) together with a conventional anti-spike IgG assay (bioMérieux) in comparison with an in-house plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) using the original 19A strain and different variants of concern (VOC), on a panel of 306 sera from naturally-infected or vaccinated patients. The qualitative test was rapidly discarded because of poor sensitivity and specificity. Areas under the curve of YHLO and TECO assays were, respectively, 85.83 and 84.07 (p-value >0.05) using a positivity threshold of 20 for PRNT50, and 95.63 and 90.35 (p-value =0.02) using a threshold of 80. However, the performances of YHLO and bioMérieux were very close for both thresholds, demonstrating the absence of added value of sVNT compared to a conventional assay for the evaluation of the presence of NAb in seropositive subjects. In addition, the PRNT50 assay showed a reduction of NAb titers towards different VOC in comparison to the 19A strain that could not be appreciated by the commercial tests. Despite the good correlation between the anti-spike antibody titer and the titer of NAb by PRNT50, our results highlight the difficulty to distinguish true NAb among the anti-RBD antibodies with commercial user-friendly immunoassays

Evaluation of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and comparison of standardized titers in vaccinated healthcare workers.

International audienceWith the availability of vaccines, commercial assays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Ab) evolved towards quantitative assays directed to the spike glycoprotein or its receptor binding domain (RBD). The main objective of the present study was to compare the Ab titers obtained with quantitative commercial binding Ab assays, after 1 dose (convalescent individuals) or 2 doses (naïve individuals) of vaccine, in healthcare workers (HCW). Antibody titers were measured in 255 sera (from 150 HCW) with 5 quantitative immunoassays (Abbott RBD IgG II quant, bioMérieux RBD IgG, DiaSorin Trimeric spike IgG, Siemens Healthineers RBD IgG, Wantai RBD IgG). One qualitative total antibody anti RBD detection assay (Wantai) was used to detect previous infection before vaccination. The results are presented in binding Ab units (BAU)/mL after application, when possible, of a conversion factor provided by the manufacturers and established from a World Health Organization (WHO) internal standard. There was a 100% seroconversion with all assays evaluated after two doses of vaccine. With assays allowing BAU/ml correction, Ab titers were correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, ρ, range: 0.85-0.94). The titer differences varied by a mean of 10.6% between Siemens and bioMérieux assays to 60.9% between Abbott and DiaSorin assays. These results underline the importance of BAU conversion for the comparison of Ab titer obtained with the different quantitative assays. However, significant differences persist, notably, between kits detecting Ab against the different antigens. A true standardization of the assays would be to include the International Standard in the calibration of each assays to express the results in IU/m

Six-month antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers assessed by virus neutralization and commercial assays

Since the SARS-CoV-2 emergence in December 2019, one of the major concerns has been the duration of immune protection after a first episode. This question is of paramount importance for healthcare workers (HCWs), who are a highly exposed population and among the first targets of vaccination programmes. To date, the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in HCWs 6 months after disease onset (ADO) has not been studied with both a virus neutralisation btest and commercial assays

Evaluation of High-Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays in a Longitudinal Cohort of Patients with Mild COVID-19: Clinical Sensitivity, Specificity, and Association with Virus Neutralization Test

International audienceAbstract Background The association between SARS-CoV-2 commercial serological assays and virus neutralization test (VNT) has been poorly explored in mild patients with COVID-19. Methods 439 serum specimens were longitudinally collected from 76 healthcare workers with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19. The clinical sensitivity (determined weekly) of 9 commercial serological assays were evaluated. Clinical specificity was assessed using 69 pre-pandemic sera. Correlation, agreement, and concordance with the VNT were also assessed on a subset of 170 samples. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated at 2 neutralizing antibody titers. Results The Wantai Total Ab assay targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the S protein presented the best sensitivity at different times during the course of disease. The clinical specificity was greater than 95% for all tests except for the Euroimmun IgA assay. The overall agreement with the presence of neutralizing antibodies ranged from 62.2% (95%CI; 56.0–68.1) for bioMérieux IgM to 91.2% (87.0–94.2) for Siemens. The lowest negative percent agreement (NPA) was found with the Wantai Total Ab assay (NPA 33% (21.1–48.3)). The NPA for other total Ab or IgG assays targeting the S or the RBD was 80.7% (66.7–89.7), 90.3% (78.1–96.1), and 96.8% (86.8–99.3) for Siemens, bioMérieux IgG, and DiaSorin, respectively. None of the commercial assays have sufficient performance to detect a neutralizing titer of 80 (AUC < 0.76). Conclusions Although some assays show a better agreement with VNT than others, the present findings emphasize that commercialized serological tests, including those targeting the RBD, cannot substitute a VNT for the assessment of functional antibody response

Feasibility of a prehabilitation programme dedicated to older patients with cancer before complex medical–surgical procedures: the PROADAPT pilot study protocol

International audienceBackground Ageing is associated with an increased prevalence of comorbidities and sarcopenia as well as a decline of functional reserve of multiple organ systems, which may lead, in the context of the disease-related and/or treatment-related stress, to functional deconditioning. The multicomponent ‘Prehabilitation & Rehabilitation in Oncogeriatrics: Adaptation to Deconditioning risk and Accompaniment of Patients’ Trajectories (PROADAPT)’ intervention was developed multiprofessionally to implement prehabilitation in older patients with cancer. Methods The PROADAPT pilot study is an interventional, non-comparative, prospective, multicentre study. It will include 122 patients oriented to complex medical–surgical curative procedures (major surgery or radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy). After informed consent, patients will undergo a comprehensive geriatric assessment and will be offered a prehabilitation kit that includes an advice booklet with personalised objectives and respiratory rehabilitation devices. Patients will then be called weekly and monitored for physical and respiratory rehabilitation, preoperative renutrition, motivational counselling and iatrogenic prevention. Six outpatient visits will be planned: at inclusion, a few days before the procedure and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the end of the procedure. The main outcome of the study is the feasibility of the intervention, defined as the ability to perform at least one of the components of the programme. Clinical data collected will include patient-specific and cancer-specific characteristics. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ile de France 8 ethics committee on 5 June 2018. The results of the primary and secondary objectives will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT03659123 . Pre-results of the trial

Assessment of serological techniques for screening patients for COVID-19 (COVID-SER): a prospective, multicentric study

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 threatens global public health, and there is an urgent public health need to assess acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Serological tests might provide results that can be complementary to or confirm suspected COVID-19 cases and reveal previous infection. The performance of serological assays (sensitivity and specificity) has to be evaluated before their use in the general population. The neutralisation capacity of the produced antibodies also has to be evaluated.Methods and analysis We set up a prospective, multicentric clinical study to evaluate the performance of serological kits among a population of healthcare workers presenting mild symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Four hundred symptomatic healthcare workers will be included in the COVID-SER study. The values obtained from a control cohort included during the prepandemic time will be used as reference. A workflow was set up to study serological response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate antibody neutralisation capacity in patients with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests will be assessed using molecular detection of the virus as a reference. The measurement of IgM and IgG antibodies will be performed once per week for 6 consecutive weeks and then at 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months after the diagnosis. The kinetics of IgM and IgG will determine the optimal period to perform serological testing. The proportion of false negative PCR tests in symptomatic subjects will be determined on the basis of subsequent seroconversions.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from the national review board for biomedical research in April 2020 (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Méditerranée I, Marseille, France) (ID RCB 2020-A00932-37). Results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT04341142

Feasibility of a prehabilitation programme dedicated to older patients with cancer before complex medical–surgical procedures: the PROADAPT pilot study protocol

Background Ageing is associated with an increased prevalence of comorbidities and sarcopenia as well as a decline of functional reserve of multiple organ systems, which may lead, in the context of the disease-related and/or treatment-related stress, to functional deconditioning. The multicomponent ‘Prehabilitation & Rehabilitation in Oncogeriatrics: Adaptation to Deconditioning risk and Accompaniment of Patients’ Trajectories (PROADAPT)’ intervention was developed multiprofessionally to implement prehabilitation in older patients with cancer.Methods The PROADAPT pilot study is an interventional, non-comparative, prospective, multicentre study. It will include 122 patients oriented to complex medical–surgical curative procedures (major surgery or radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy). After informed consent, patients will undergo a comprehensive geriatric assessment and will be offered a prehabilitation kit that includes an advice booklet with personalised objectives and respiratory rehabilitation devices. Patients will then be called weekly and monitored for physical and respiratory rehabilitation, preoperative renutrition, motivational counselling and iatrogenic prevention. Six outpatient visits will be planned: at inclusion, a few days before the procedure and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the end of the procedure. The main outcome of the study is the feasibility of the intervention, defined as the ability to perform at least one of the components of the programme. Clinical data collected will include patient-specific and cancer-specific characteristics.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ile de France 8 ethics committee on 5 June 2018. The results of the primary and secondary objectives will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT03659123. Pre-results of the trial

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of symptomatic healthcare workers with suspected COVID-19: a prospective cohort study

International audienceA comprehensive clinical and microbiological assessments of COVID-19 in front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) is needed. Between April 10th and May 28th, 2020, 319 HCWs with acute illness were reviewed. In addition to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR screening, a multiplex molecular panel was used for testing other respiratory pathogens. For SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs, the normalized viral load, viral culture, and virus neutralization assays were performed weekly. For SARS-CoV-2 negative HCWs, SARS-CoV-2 serological testing was performed one month after inclusion. Among the 319 HCWs included, 67 (21.0%) were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 65/67 (97.0%) developed mild form of COVID-19. Other respiratory pathogens were found in 6/66 (9.1%) SARS-CoV-2 positive and 47/241 (19.5%) SARS-Cov-2 negative HCWs ( p = 0.07). The proportion of HCWs with a viral load > 5.0 log 10 cp/mL (Ct value  37). More than 90% of cultivable virus had a viral load > 4.5 log 10 cp/mL (Ct < 26) and were collected within 10 days after symptom onset. Among negative HCWs, 6/190 (3.2%) seroconverted. Our data suggest that the determination of viral load can be used for appreciating the infectiousness of infected HCWs. These data could be helpful for facilitating their return to work