Slev, Patricia

Abstract Background The clinical laboratory continues to play a critical role in managing the coronavirus pandemic. Numerous US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA) and laboratory-developed test (LDT) serologic assays have become available. The performance characteristics of these assays and their clinical utility continue to be defined in real time during this pandemic. The AACC convened a panel of experts from clinical chemistry, microbiology, and immunology laboratories; the in vitro diagnostics industry; and regulatory agencies to provide practical recommendations for implementation and interpretation of these serologic tests in clinical laboratories. Content The currently available EUA serologic tests and platforms, information on assay design, antibody classes including neutralizing antibodies, and the humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are discussed. Verification and validation of EUA and LDT assays are described, along with a quality management approach. Four indications for serologic testing are outlined. Recommendations for result interpretation, reporting comments, and the role of orthogonal testing are also presented. Summary This document aims to provide a comprehensive reference for laboratory professionals and healthcare workers to appropriately implement SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays in the clinical laboratory and to interpret test results during this pandemic. Given the more frequent occurrence of outbreaks associated with either vector-borne or respiratory pathogens, this document will be a useful resource in planning for similar scenarios in the future.

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) brought with it rapid development of both molecular and serologic assays for identification of COVID-19 infections. While Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) is required for clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests, submission for EUA is currently a voluntary process for manufacturers of serologic assays. The absence of FDA oversight of serologic tests is concerning given that the commercially available serologic assays are highly variable, differing in their format, the antibody class detected, the targeted antigen, and the acceptable specimen types.

Background Geenius HIV 1/2 Supplemental Assay (Geenius; Bio-Rad Laboratories) is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody differentiation test for the second step in the HIV laboratory testing algorithm. We characterized the occurrence of true HIV-1 and HIV-2 infections as well as false results in 6 US clinical laboratories using Geenius. Methods We examined routine HIV testing outcome data from the time the laboratories began using the algorithm with Geenius until September 30, 2017. We calculated the positive predictive value for Geenius HIV-1 and HIV-2 reactivity separately. Results Of 5,046,684 specimens tested, 41,791 had reactive antigen/antibody test results. Most specimens with reactive antigen/antibody results were HIV-1 antibody–positive established infections (n = 32,421), 1,865 of which also had indeterminate HIV-2 bands present. Ninety-three specimens were HIV-2 antibody positive or untypable for HIV-1/HIV-2 antibody. Acute HIV-1 infections were found in 528 specimens; 881 specimens lacked the nucleic acid test to determine the possibility of acute HIV-1 infection. False-positive antigen/antibody test results were present in 7505 specimens. Few specimens (n = 363) had false-positive antigen/antibody results with indeterminate Geenius and negative HIV-1 nucleic acid test results. The positive predictive values of Geenius reactivity were 99.4% for HIV-1 and 4.3% for HIV-2. Conclusions Routine testing using the laboratory testing algorithm with Geenius resulted in most specimens resolving as HIV negative or HIV-1 positive. The occurrence of indeterminate HIV-2 bands with a Geenius final assay interpretation of HIV-1 positive was more common than true HIV-2 infections. Reporting indeterminate HIV-2 results in this situation may cause confusion with interpreting HIV infection status.