Evaluation of QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 interferon-Î³ release assay following SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

Background: T cells are important in preventing severe disease from SARS-CoV-2, but scalable and field-adaptable alternatives to expert T cell assays are needed. The interferon-gamma release assay QuantiFERON platform was developed to detect T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 from whole blood with relatively basic equipment and flexibility of processing timelines. Methods: 48 participants with different infection and vaccination backgrounds were recruited. Whole blood samples were analysed using the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay in parallel with the well-established Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare workers (PITCH) ELISpot, which can evaluate spike-specific T cell responses. Aims: The primary aims of this cross-sectional observational cohort study were to establish if the QuantiFERON SARS-Co-V-2 assay could discern differences between specified groups and to assess the sensitivity of the assay compared to the PITCH ELISpot. Findings: The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 distinguished acutely infected individuals (12-21 days post positive PCR) from naive individuals (p< 0.0001) with 100% sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 T cells, whilst the PITCH ELISpot had reduced sensitivity (62.5%) for the acute infection group. Sensitivity with QuantiFERON for previous infection was 12.5% (172-444 days post positive test) and was inferior to the PITCH ELISpot (75%). Although the QuantiFERON assay could discern differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals (55-166 days since second vaccination), the latter also had reduced sensitivity (55.5%) compared to the PITCH ELISpot (66.6%). Conclusion: The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay showed potential as a T cell evaluation tool soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection but has lower sensitivity for use in reliable evaluation of vaccination or more distant infection.


settings including in low-and middle-income countries. A handful of studies have utilised 96
the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay (21-29). A small internal feasibility study carried out by 97 Qiagen found quantifiable responses to vaccination over the course of four weeks after 98 second vaccination (21). When analysing T cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the 99 study showed detectable responses in three out of four participants with the assay. 100 However, an important limitation of this small study was the lack of reference to a well-101 established cell-based assay to evaluate the potential of the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay 102 to accurately assess T cell responses.

104
Therefore, the present study sought to evaluate T cell responses using the QuantiFERON 105 SARS-CoV-2 assay with parallel analysis using the well-established PITCH ELISpot (4-6,17,30) 106 following SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. The study also explored the sensitivity and 107 specificity of the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay in detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell 108 responses. Herein we present data to demonstrate a potential role for QuantiFERON SARS-109 CoV-2 as a reliable T cell evaluation tool soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but with low 110 sensitivity compared to the conventional ELISpot assay for studying T cells following 111 vaccination.

113
Materials and Methods 114 Study design and participant recruitment 115 Participants were sampled in the community or OPTIC (Oxford Protective T cell Immunity 116 against COVID-19) study clinic in Oxford, UK once each between 9 th and 18 th June 2021. Committee on 29 July 2016, which had been amended for this purpose on 8 June 2020 or 122 the Family Study R71346/RE001, approved by Oxford University's Medical Sciences Inter-123 Divisional REC (MS-IDREC-R71346/RE00). Our target was 10 participants per group as a 124 feasible number allowing meaningful statistical comparison, although no formal power 125 calculation was performed. 126 127 Participants were sampled in the community or at the OPTIC (Oxford Protective T cell 128 Immunity against COVID-19) study clinic in Oxford, UK once each during the month of June 129 2021. Following blood draw, samples for the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay were kept at 130 4-8C degrees for up to 48 hours before processing. The rest of the sample was used for 131 isolation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) that were cryopreserved on the 132 sample day and frozen for future use in the PITCH ELISpot assay. Participants were 133 designated as naïve or previously infected for SARS-CoV-2 based on a positive PCR and/or 134 serology at any time. Acute SARS-CoV-2 infection group was classified as blood sampling 12- is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint infection individuals compared to naïve controls ( Figure 1A; p < 0.0001 for all). Samples 295 were also compared using two PITCH ELISpot assays -one against the spike protein (S1+S2) 296 and one against structural proteins M protein and nucleocapsid protein (M+NP). A 297 significant difference was also seen in the PITCH ELISpot comparison for S1+S2 and M+NP 298 between naïve and acute infection groups ( Figure 1B; p = 0.037 and p = 0.019 respectively).

299
For the naïve vs previous infection group comparison, there was no statistically significant 300 difference in the amount of IFN- produced in any of the three QuantiFERON tubes ( Figure  301 1C), although the PITCH ELISpot was able to detect differences in S1+S2 (p = 0.029) and 302 M+NP (p = 0.007) when comparing the two groups ( Figure 1D). When looking at vaccinated 303 individuals and aiming to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve and previous infection 304 (median of 222 days, range 175-433 days since positive test), there were no statistically 305 significant differences between the groups using QuantiFERON Ag1, Ag2 or Ag3 ( Figure 1E).

306
The PITCH ELISpot found a difference between the vaccinated naïve and vaccinated previous 307 infection groups with M+NP (p = 0.0005) but not for S1+S2 (p = 0.254) ( Figure 1F).

Sensitivity of the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay 325
The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay utilises the QuantiFERON IGRA technology, known for 326 its use in detecting tuberculosis with QuantiFERON TB Gold. This assay has a standardised 327 threshold for designating samples as being 'positive'. As such, we sought to present the 328 current data as qualitative positive or negative results. As there was no threshold provided 329 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint Using this threshold, for Ag1, none of the unvaccinated naïve samples were above threshold 335 (Figure 2A) ( Figure 2B). For Ag3, none of the unvaccinated naïve samples were above threshold. 55.5% 341 of vaccinated naïve samples were above threshold, 100% unvaccinated acute infection, 342 12.5% of unvaccinated previous infection and 50% of vaccinated previous infection were 343 above threshold ( Figure 2C). The S1+S2 PITCH ELISpot showed greater sensitivity for SARS-344 CoV-2 T cell responses in general ( Figure 2D). 11.11% of unvaccinated naïve samples were 345 above threshold, with 66.6% of vaccinated naïve, 62.5% of unvaccinated acute infection, 346 75% of unvaccinated previous infection and 91.67% of vaccinated previous infection above 347 threshold. For M+NP, there was less sensitivity compared to S1+S2 with 0% of naive 348 unvaccinated and naive vaccinated above threshold (Figure 2E) Correlation analysis was performed between the three assay tubes for the QuantiFERON 374 SARS-CoV-2 (Supplementary Figure 2). For all three comparisons (Ag1 v Ag2, Ag1 v Ag3 and 375 Ag2 v Ag3) there was significant correlation (R 2 0.7132 -0.889, p < 0.0001). 376 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted September 4, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.03.22279558 doi: medRxiv preprint 377

Correlation of the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay with PITCH ELISpot and MSD antibody 378
platform 379 Correlation analysis was performed between the three QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay 380 tubes and the PITCH ELISpot assay. For all three assay tubes there was no significant 381 correlation with PITCH ELISpot S1+S2 (Figure 3A-C) or with PITCH M+NP (Figure 3D-F).

385
Discussion 386 T cells are increasingly recognised for their role in SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination (33-387 36). However, cell-based assays which evaluate T cells are typically labour-and expertise-388 intensive, require specialist equipment, and need specialist processing of fresh blood within 389 3-4 hours of blood draw. Therefore, validating simple, commercially available kits could 390 expand the repertoire of tools for evaluating T cells in the context of SARS-CoV-2, 391 particularly in research laboratories which do not have means to overcome the above 392 barriers. The present study sought to do this with the commercially available QuantiFERON 393 SARS-CoV-2 assay, which is based on the same technology of the QuantiFERON TB Gold used 394 worldwide (reviewed in (37)). This assay has a straight-forward work-flow, basic equipment 395 requirements compared to other cell-based assays and tolerance of delays in processing. 396 Moreover, the read-out can be seen at times with the naked eye, which may merit further 397 investigation (Supplementary Figure 4).

399
The data presented in this study demonstrates a robust read-out for all three QuantiFERON The highly sensitive and specific results in the acute infection samples show potential for the 415 assay to be used as a diagnostic test, as is the case for the QuantiFERON TB IGRA in settings 416 where PCR testing may not be feasible. T cells can be detected as soon as 3-5 post symptom 417 onset, with a similar kinetic profile to antibody detection (40,41), which supports the use of 418 T cell-based diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 tests. However, the utility of such a diagnostic test 419 would be at the time of symptom onset, which was not possible to assess in the current 420 study due to national isolation guidelines at the time of sampling. Further studies closer to 421 symptom onset are required to investigate further. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The low responses to Ag1, Ag2 or Ag3 seen in naïve participants post vaccination limit the 424 utility of the QuantiFERON assay for scaled up study of response to vaccination. This is 425 disappointing when there is a huge need for large scale prospective longitudinal studies in a 426 range of populations and settings, to establish immune correlates of protection and 427 differences in vaccine response between vulnerable patient groups. A larger dynamic range 428 of IFN- responses post vaccination or infection has been observed in another whole blood 429 ELISA-based assay (9,10), although some of these samplings were taken closer to the time of 430 vaccination which may explain their greater sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses than 431 in the present study. Further work to raise the sensitivity of the QuantiFERON assay, such as 432 increasing the detection of IFN- by ELISA, would be hugely valuable and would have high 433 potential for transfer to other emerging outbreak pathogens in regions of the world with 434 limited laboratory capacity. Nevertheless, the presence or absence of a T cell response 435 detectable by the QuantiFERON assay could prove to be a useful parameter to include in 436 longitudinal studies of vaccine immunogenicity and correlates of protection.

438
With the exception of the acutely infected group, the PITCH ELISpot S1+S2 exhibited 439 superior sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 T cell responses compared to the QuantiFERON SARS- proprietary information, thus limiting our understanding for the performance differences 446 between the platforms. 447 448 According to the manufacturer, the epitopes lining the Ag1 assay tube activate CD4 + T cells 449 specific to RBD, Ag2 activates CD4 + and CD8 + T cells specific to S1 and S2, and Ag3 activates 450 CD4 + and CD8 + T cells against numerous SARS-CoV-2 peptides including spike. In the five sets 451 of two-group comparisons illustrated in Figure 1, Ag1 was able to discern statistically 452 significant differences in two of the five group comparisons, Ag2 in three of five and Ag3 in 453 three of five. In terms of sensitivity, Ag3 had the highest sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2-specific T 454 cells in four of the five individual groups. Overall, there was correlation between the 455 QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay tubes. Taken together, the present data suggests the Ag3 456 tube may be the most useful of the three for evaluating SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in 457 infection and vaccination. Unfortunately, none of the combination of antigens provided by 458 the manufacturer enable identification of previous infection in vaccinated individuals, 459 because all three antigen sets contain spike peptides.

461
There was little evidence to support a strong correlation between the QuantiFERON SARS-462 CoV-2 assay tubes and the ELISpot assay. Interestingly, there was statistically significant 463 correlations between QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 and the MSD antibody data, however R 464 squared values were relatively low, therefore strong conclusions about a true relationship 465 between the sample sets cannot be drawn but may merit further investigation with a larger 466 sample set.

468
The primary aim of this study was to determine the utility of the commercially-available 469 QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay in evaluating T cells following SARS-CoV-2 infection and 470 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint 18-56) and healthy individuals, whilst T cell response to vaccination is known to be affected 495 by aging (51) and immunosuppression (52,53). This study was biased towards female 496 participants, although larger studies have not found sex to be a determinant of SARS-CoV-2-497 specifiic T cell responses (5). There was also limited ethnic diversity in this cohort. Finally, 498 the number of participants recruited may have rendered some of the statistical analysis sub-499 optimal, particularly in regard to correlation analysis with a significant proportion of zero 500 values in the QuantiFERON assays. The limitations suggest further larger studies with 501 genetically sequenced strains with a population to include a range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, 502 ages, co-morbidities, sexes and ethnicities are warranted. 503 504 Data Availability Statement 505 The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary 506 material. 507 508 Funding Statement 509 This work was funded by the UK Department of Health and Social Care as part of the PITCH 510 (Protective Immunity from T cells to Covid-19 in Health workers) Consortium, with 511 contributions from the National Core Study: Immunity (NCSi4P programme) 'Optimal 512 cellular assays for SARS-CoV-2 T cell, B cell and innate immunity', UKRI through the UK 513 Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC), the Huo Family Foundation, The National 514 Institute for Health Research (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call, Grant 515 Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical 516 Countermeasures Initiative contract 75F40120C00085. 517 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint QuantiFERON assays were purchased as part of a commercial contract and the company 546 played no role in this report. 547 548 Acknowledgements 549 We are grateful to all our healthcare worker colleagues who participated in the study, and 550 to Lisa Fielding for administrative support. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted September 4, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted September 4, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted September 4, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.03.22279558 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted September 4, 2022. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted September 4, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.03.22279558 doi: medRxiv preprint