@article {Papenburg2021.01.23.21250325, author = {Jesse Papenburg and Matthew P. Cheng and Rachel Corsini and Chelsea Caya and Emelissa Mendoza and Kathy Manguiat and L. Robbin Lindsay and Heidi Wood and Michael A. Drebot and Antonia Dibernardo and Gerasimos Zaharatos and Rene{\'e}e Bazin and Romain Gasser and Mehdi Benlarbi and Gabrielle Gendron-Lepage and Guillaume Beaudoin-Bussi{\`e}res and J{\'e}r{\'e}mie Pr{\'e}vost and Andr{\'e}s Finzi and Momar Ndao and Cedric P Yansouni}, title = {Evaluation of a Commercial Culture-free Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus-2 and Comparison with an Anti-RBD ELISA Assay}, elocation-id = {2021.01.23.21250325}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1101/2021.01.23.21250325}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Background SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays that obviate the need for viral culture offer substantial advantages regarding throughput and cost. The cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (Genscript) is the first such commercially available assay, detecting antibodies that block RBD/ACE-2 interaction. We aimed to evaluate cPass to inform its use and assess its added value compared to anti-RBD ELISA assays.Methods Serum reference panels comprising 205 specimens were used to compare cPass to plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and a pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization (PLV) assay for detection of neutralizing antibodies. We assessed the correlation of cPass with an ELISA detecting anti-RBD IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies at a single timepoint and across intervals from onset of symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Results Compared to PRNT-50, cPass sensitivity ranged from 77\% - 100\% and specificity was 95\% - 100\%. Sensitivity was also high compared to the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay (93\% [95\%CI 85-97]), but specificity was lower (58\% [95\%CI 48-67]). Highest agreement between cPass and ELISA was for anti-RBD IgG (r=0.823). Against the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay, anti-RBD IgG sensitivity (99\% [95\%CI 94-100]) was very similar to that of cPass, but overall specificity was lower (37\% [95\%CI 28-47]). Against PRNT-50, results of cPass and anti-RBD IgG were nearly identical.Conclusions The added value of cPass compared to an IgG anti-RBD ELISA was modest.Competing Interest StatementJ. Papenburg reports grants from MedImmune, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, grants and personal fees from Seegene, grants and personal fees from Janssen Pharmaceutical, grants and personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. MPC reports personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board) and personal fees from nplex biosciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board), both outside the submitted work.Funding StatementC.P.Y and J. Papenburg hold a "Chercheur-boursier clinicien" career award from the Fonds de recherche du Qu{\'e}bec-Sant{\'e} (FRQS). This work was partially supported by le Minist{\`e}re de l{\textquoteright}{\'e}conomie et de l{\textquoteright}Innovation du Qu{\'e}bec (Program de soutien aux organismes de recherche et d{\textquoteright}innovation), by the Fondation du CHUM, and by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (via the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force) to A.F. A.F. is the recipient of a Canada Research Chair on Retroviral Entry (RCHS0235 950-232424). G.B.B, and J. Pr{\'e}vost are supported by CIHR fellowships. R.G. is supported by a MITACS Acc{\'e}l{\'e}ration postdoctoral fellowship. cPass kits were provided in kind by Genscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All work was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki in terms of informed consent and approval by an appropriate institutional board. Convalescent plasmas were obtained from donors who consented to participate in this research project at H{\'e}ma-Qu{\'e}bec, the agency responsible for blood supply in Quebec, Canada, (Research Ethics Board [REB] $\#$ 2020-004) and the Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l{\textquoteright}Universit{\'e} de Montr{\'e}al (CR-CHUM) (REB $\#$ 19.381). The donors met all donor eligibility criteria: previous confirmed COVID-19 infection and complete resolution of symptoms for at least 14 days. At the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI-MUHC), where cPass testing was performed, an REB exemption was granted on the basis that this work was considered to be a laboratory quality improvement project with no risk to participants.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAfter peer-reviewed publication, data available on request in the setting of a suitable research protocol.}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/20/2021.01.23.21250325}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/20/2021.01.23.21250325.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }