Abstract
With the availability of widespread SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, high-throughput quantitative anti-spike serological testing will likely become increasingly important. Here, we investigated the performance characteristics of the recently FDA authorized semi-quantitative anti-spike AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay compared to the FDA authorized anti-nucleocapsid Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Roche elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S, EuroImmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA, and GenScript surrogate virus neutralization assays and examined the humoral response associated with vaccination, natural protection, and breakthrough infection. The AdviseDx assay had a clinical sensitivity at 14 days post-symptom onset or 10 days post PCR detection of 95.6% (65/68, 95% CI: 87.8-98.8%) with two discrepant individuals seroconverting shortly thereafter. The AdviseDx assay demonstrated 100% positive percent agreement with the four other assays examined using the same symptom onset or PCR detection cutoffs. Using a recently available WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody, we provide assay unit conversion factors to international units for each of the assays examined. We performed a longitudinal survey of healthy vaccinated individuals, finding median AdviseDx immunoglobulin levels peaked seven weeks post-first vaccine dose at approximately 4,000 IU/mL. Intriguingly, among the five assays examined, there was no significant difference in antigen binding level or neutralizing activity between two seropositive patients protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a previously described fishing vessel outbreak and five healthcare workers who experienced vaccine breakthrough of SARS-CoV-2 infection – all with variants of concern. These findings suggest that protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection cannot currently be predicted exclusively using in vitro antibody assays against wildtype SARS-CoV-2 spike. Further work is required to establish protective correlates of protection for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Competing Interest Statement
ALG reports contract testing from Abbott Laboratories and research support from Gilead and Merck, outside of the described work
Funding Statement
supported by Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
University of Washington IRB.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
data available in summary tables.
