We measured plasma and/or serum antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in 343 North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (of which 93% required hospitalization) up to 122 days after symptom onset and compared them to responses in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic. After setting seropositivity thresholds for perfect specificity (100%), we estimated sensitivities of 95% for IgG, 90% for IgA, and 81% for IgM for detecting infected individuals between 15 and 28 days after symptom onset. While the median time to seroconversion was nearly 12 days across all three isotypes tested, IgA and IgM antibodies against RBD were short-lived with median times to seroreversion of 71 and 49 days after symptom onset. In contrast, anti-RBD IgG responses decayed slowly through 90 days with only 3 seropositive individuals seroreverting within this time period. IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 RBD were strongly correlated with anti-S neutralizing antibody titers, which demonstrated little to no decrease over 75 days since symptom onset. We observed no cross-reactivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD-targeted antibodies with other widely circulating coronaviruses (HKU1, 229 E, OC43, NL63). These data suggest that RBD-targeted antibodies are excellent markers of previous and recent infection, that differential isotype measurements can help distinguish between recent and older infections, and that IgG responses persist over the first few months after infection and are highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies.

No abstract

T o date, hundreds of thousands of deaths have been attributed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) 1. Millions of infections by SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, have been reported, although its full extent has yet to be determined owing to limited testing 2. Government interventions to slow viral spread have disrupted daily life and economic activity for billions of people. Strategies to ease restraints on human mobility and interaction without provoking a major resurgence of transmission and mortality will depend on accurate estimates of population levels of infection and immunity 3. Current testing for the virus largely depends on labor-intensive molecular techniques 4. Individuals with positive molecular tests represent only a small fraction of all infections, given limited deployment and the brief time window when real-time (RT)-PCR testing has the highest sensitivity 5-7. The proportion of undocumented cases in the original epidemic focus was estimated to be as high as 86% 8 , and asymptomatic infections are suspected to play a substantial role in transmission 9-14. Widely available, reliable antibody detection assays would enable more accurate estimates of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and incidence. On February 4, 2020, the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 15 , allowing nucleic acid detection and immunoassay tests to be offered based on manufacturer-reported data without formal US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance 16. In response, dozens of companies began to market laboratory-based immunoassays and point-of-care (POC) tests. Rigorous, comparative performance data are crucial to inform clinical care and public health responses.

BACKGROUND Characterizing the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and developing accurate serologic assays are needed for diagnostic purposes and estimating population-level seroprevalence. METHODS We measured the kinetics of early antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of 259 symptomatic North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (up to 75 days after symptom onset) compared to antibody levels in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic. RESULTS Between 14-28 days from onset of symptoms, IgG, IgA, or IgM antibody responses to RBD were all accurate in identifying recently infected individuals, with 100% specificity and a sensitivity of 97%, 91%, and 81% respectively. Although the estimated median time to becoming seropositive was similar across isotypes, IgA and IgM antibodies against RBD were short-lived with most individuals estimated to become seronegative again by 51 and 47 days after symptom onset, respectively. IgG antibodies against RBD lasted longer and persisted through 75 days post-symptoms. IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 RBD were highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies targeting the S protein. No cross-reactivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD-targeted antibodies was observed with several known circulating coronaviruses, HKU1, OC 229 E, OC43, and NL63. CONCLUSIONS Among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases, RBD-targeted antibodies can be indicative of previous and recent infection. IgG antibodies are correlated with neutralizing antibodies and are possibly a correlate of protective immunity.

No abstract

Background Understanding immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to guide rational use. Methods We compared the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S in healthy ambulatory adults in Massachusetts, USA. To correlate immunogenicity with effectiveness of the three vaccines, we performed an inverse-variance meta-analysis of population level effectiveness from public health reports in >40 million individuals. Results A single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable antibody and neutralization titers to convalescent individuals. Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and frequently undetectable neutralization titers. Bulk and cytotoxic T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients. Regardless of vaccine, <50% of vaccinees demonstrated CD8+ T-cell responses. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased comparably after the first dose of either vaccine, and further in recipients of a second dose. Prior infection was associated with high antibody concentrations and neutralization even after a single dose and regardless of vaccine. Neutralization of beta, gamma and delta strains were poorer regardless of vaccine. In meta-analysis, relative to mRNA1273 the effectiveness of BNT162b2 was lower against infection and hospitalization; and Ad26COV2.S was lower against infection, hospitalization and death. Conclusions Variation in the immunogenicity correlates with variable effectiveness of the three FDA EUA vaccines deployed in the USA.

The diagnosis of COVID‐19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS‐CoV‐2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. We conducted a single‐center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR‐positive SARS‐CoV‐2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. Clinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70%‐71% from Days 9 to 11, and 30% at Day 21. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR‐positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies. In contrast to PCR, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after Day 7, >80% after Day 12, and 100% by Day 21. Taken together, PCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time‐dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.

Critical to managing the spread of COVID-19 is the ability to diagnose infection and define the acquired immune response across the population. While genomic tests for the novel Several Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detect the presence of viral RNA for a limited time frame, when the virus is shed in the upper respiratory tract, tests able to define exposure and infection beyond this short window of detectable viral replication are urgently needed. Following infection, antibodies are generated within days, providing a durable read-out and archive of exposure and infection. Several antibody tests have emerged to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Here we report on a qualified quantitative ELISA assay that displays all the necessary characteristics for high-throughput sample analysis. Collectively, this test offers a quantitative opportunity to define both exposure and levels of immunity to SARS-CoV-2.