Background Convalescent plasma therapy is a leading treatment for conferring temporary immunity to COVID-19 susceptible individuals or for use as post-exposure prophylaxis. However, not all recovered patients develop adequate antibody titers for donation and the relationship between avidity and neutralizing titers is currently not well understood. Methods SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgG titers and avidity were measured in a longitudinal cohort of COVID-19 hospitalized patients (n=16 individuals) and a cross-sectional sample of convalescent plasma donors (n=130). Epidemiologic correlates of avidity were examined in donors by linear regression. The association of avidity and a high neutralizing titer (NT) were also assessed in donors using modified Poisson regression. Results Antibody avidity increased over duration of infection and remained elevated. In convalescent plasma donors, higher levels of anti-spike avidity was associated with older age, male sex, and hospitalization. Higher NTs had a stronger positive correlation with anti-spike IgG avidity (spearman’s rho=0.386;p&0.001), than with anti-nucleocapsid IgG avidity (spearman’s rho=0.211;p=0.026). Increasing levels of anti-spike IgG avidity were associated with high NT(≥160) (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.58[95%CI=1.19-2.12]), independent of age, sex, and hospitalization. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 antibody avidity correlated with duration of infection and higher neutralizing titers, suggesting a potential alternative screening parameter for identifying optimal convalescent plasma donors.

Accurate serological assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are needed to characterize the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify potential candidates for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donation. This study compared the performance of commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies (nAb). The diagnostic accuracy of five commercially available EIAs (Abbott, Euroimmun, EDI, ImmunoDiagnostics, and Roche) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated from cross-sectional samples of potential CCP donors that had prior molecular confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=214) and pre-pandemic emergency department patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=1,099). Of the 214 potential CCP donors, all were sampled >14 days since symptom onset and only a minority had been hospitalized due to COVID-19 (n=16 [7.5%]); 140 potential CCP donors were tested by all five EIAs and a microneutralization assay. When performed according to the manufacturers' protocol to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the sensitivity of each EIA ranged from 76.4% to 93.9%, and the specificity of each EIA ranged from 87.0% to 99.6%. Using a nAb titer cutoff of ≥160 as the reference positive test (n=140 CCP donors), the empirical area under receiver operating curve of each EIA ranged from 0.66 (Roche) to 0.90 (Euroimmun). Commercial EIAs with high diagnostic accuracy to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not necessarily have high diagnostic accuracy to detect high nAbs. Some but not all commercial EIAs may be useful in the identification of individuals with high nAbs in convalescent individuals.

Accurate serological assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are needed to characterize the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify potential candidates for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donation. This study compared the performance of commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies (nAb). The diagnostic accuracy of five commercially available EIAs (Abbott, Euroimmun, EDI, ImmunoDiagnostics, and Roche) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated from cross-sectional samples of potential CCP donors that had prior molecular confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection for sensitivity (n=214) and pre-pandemic emergency department patients for specificity (n=1,102). Of the 214 potential CCP donors, all were sampled >14 days since symptom onset and only a minority had been hospitalized due to COVID-19 (n=16 [7.5%]); 140 potential CCP donors were tested by all five EIAs and a microneutralization assay. When performed according to the manufacturers’ protocol to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the sensitivity of each EIA ranged from 76.4% to 93.9%, and the specificity of each EIA ranged from 87.0% to 99.6%. Using a nAb titer cutoff of ≥160 as the reference positive test (n=140 CCP donors), the empirical area under receiver operating curve of each EIA ranged from 0.66 (Roche) to 0.90 (Euroimmun). Commercial EIAs with high diagnostic accuracy to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not necessarily have high diagnostic accuracy to detect high nAbs. Some but not all commercial EIAs may be useful in the identification of individuals with high nAbs in convalescent individuals.

Background. Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparison of these assays. Methods. Performance of fifteen different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies was performed on a well characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (average of 45 days post symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the pre-pandemic era (negative control), that were known to have been infected with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed on five LFAs on a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients of known time since symptom onset. Results. For the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55%-97% and 78%-100%, respectively. When assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0%-88% and 80%-100% for IgM and 25%-95% and 90%-100% for IgG. Longitudinal testing revealed that median time post symptom onset to a positive result was 7 days (IQR 5.4, 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR 6.3 to 11.3) for IgG. Conclusion. The testing performance varied widely among LFAs with most variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was most likely to misclassify pre-pandemic samples. The appearance of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.

Background. Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparison of these assays. Methods. Performance of fifteen different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies was performed on a well characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (average of 45 days post symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the pre-pandemic era (negative control), that were known to have been infected with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed on five POCTs on a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients of known time since symptom onset. Results. For the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55%-97% and 78%-100%, respectively. When assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0%-88% and 80%-100% for IgM and 25%-95% and 90%-100% for IgG. Longitudinal testing revealed that median time post symptom onset to a positive result was 7 days (IQR 5.4, 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR 6.3 to 11.3). Conclusion. The testing performance varied widely among POCTs with most variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was most likely to misclassify pre-pandemic samples. The appearance of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.

Current tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA) cannot differentiate recent and past infections. We describe a point of care, lateral flow assay for SARS-CoV-2 dIgA based on the highly selective binding of dIgA to a chimeric form of secretory component (CSC), that distinguishes dIgA from monomeric IgA. Detection of specific dIgA uses a complex of biotinylated SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain and streptavidin-colloidal gold. SARS-CoV-2-specific dIgA was measured both in 112 cross-sectional samples and a longitudinal panel of 362 plasma samples from 45 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 193 discrete pre-COVID-19 or PCR-negative patient samples. The assay demonstrated 100% sensitivity from 11 days post-symptom onset, and a specificity of 98.2%. With an estimated half-life of 6.3 days, dIgA provides a unique biomarker for the detection of recent SARS-CoV-2 infections with potential to enhance diagnosis and management of COVID-19 at point-of-care.

Introduction Cross‐sectional incidence testing is used to estimate population‐level HIV incidence and measure the impact of prevention interventions. There are limited data evaluating the accuracy of estimates in settings where antiretroviral therapy coverage and levels of viral suppression are high. Understanding cross‐sectional incidence estimates in these settings is important as viral suppression can lead to false recent test results. We compared the accuracy of multi‐assay algorithms (MAA) for incidence estimation to that observed in the community‐randomized HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, where the majority of participants with HIV infection were virally suppressed. Methods HIV incidence was assessed during the second year of the study, and included only individuals who were tested for HIV at visits 1 and 2 years after the start of the study (2016–2017). Incidence estimates from three MAAs were compared to the observed incidence between years 1 and 2 (MAA‐C: LAg‐Avidity <2.8 ODn + BioRad Avidity Index <95% + VL >400 copies/ml; LAg+VL MAA: LAg‐Avidity <1.5 ODn + VL >1000 copies/ml; Rapid+VL MAA: Asanté recent rapid result + VL >1000 copies/ml). The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) used for the three MAAs was 248, 130 and 180 days, respectively. Results and discussion The study consisted of: 15,845 HIV‐negative individuals; 4406 HIV positive at both visits; and 221 who seroconverted between visits. Viral load (VL) data were available for all HIV‐positive participants at the 2‐year visit. Sixty four (29%) of the seroconverters and 3227 (72%) prevelant positive participants were virally supressed (<400 copies/ml). Observed HIV incidence was 1.34% (95% CI: 1.17–1.53). Estimates of incidence were similar to observed incidence for MAA‐C, 1.26% (95% CI: 1.02–1.51) and the LAg+VL MAA, 1.29 (95% CI: 0.97–1.62). Incidence estimated by the Rapid+VL MAA was significantly lower than observed incidence (0.92%, 95% CI: 0.69–1.15, p<0.01). Conclusions MAA‐C and the LAg+VL MAA provided accurate point estimates of incidence in this cohort with high levels of viral suppression. The Rapid+VL significantly underestimated incidence, suggesting that the MDRI recommended by the manufacturer is too long or the assay is not accurately detecting enough recent infections.

No abstract