Wiencek, Joesph

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of three anti-S and one anti-N assays that were available to the project in detecting antibody levels after three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson). It also aimed to assess the association of age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccine timing, and vaccine side effects on antibody levels in a cohort of 827 individuals. In September 2021, 698 vaccinated individuals donated blood samples as part of the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) COVID-19 Immunity Study. These individuals also participated in a comprehensive survey covering demographic information, vaccination status, and associated side effects. Additionally, 305 age- and gender-matched samples were obtained from the ADLM 2015 sample bank as pre-COVID-19-negative samples. All these samples underwent antibody level analysis using three anti-S assays, namely Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman assay), Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Ortho assay), Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens assay), and one anti-N antibody assay: Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab assay (BioRad assay). A total of 827 samples (580 COVID-19 samples and 247 pre-COVID-19 samples) received results for all four assays and underwent further analysis. Beckman, Ortho, and Siemens anti-S assays showed an overall sensitivity of 99.5%, 97.6%, and 96.9%, and specificity of 90%, 100%, and 99.6%, respectively. All three assays indicated 100% sensitivity for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine and boosters, and over 99% sensitivity for the Pfizer vaccine. Sensitivities varied from 70.4% (Siemens), 81.5% (Ortho), and 96.3% (Beckman) for individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. BioRad anti-N assays demonstrated 46.2% sensitivity and 99.25% specificity based on results from individuals with self-reported infection. The highest median anti-S antibody levels were measured in individuals who received the Moderna vaccine, followed by Pfizer and then Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Higher anti-S antibody levels were significantly associated with younger age and closer proximity to the last vaccine dose but were not associated with gender, race, or ethnicity. Participants with higher anti-S levels experienced significantly more side effects as well as more severe side effects (e.g., muscle pain, chills, fever, and moderate limitations) (p < 0.05). Anti-N antibody levels only indicated a significant correlation with headache. This study indicated performance variations among different anti-S assays, both among themselves and when analyzing individuals with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Caution should be exercised when conducting large-scale studies to ensure that the same platform and/or assays are used for the most effective interpretation of the data.

Abstract In 2021, the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) (formerly the American Association for Clinical Chemistry [AACC]) developed a scientific study that aimed to contribute to the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 immunity during the evolving course of the pandemic. This study was led by a group of expert member volunteers and resulted in survey data from 975 individuals and blood collection from 698 of those participants. This paper describes the formulation and execution of this large-scale scientific study, encompassing best practices and insights gained throughout the endeavor.

Objectives: The objective of this prospective study was to investigate the role of adaptive immunity in response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Design and Methods: A cohort of 677 vaccinated individuals participated in a comprehensive survey of their vaccination status and associated side effects, and donated blood to evaluate their adaptive immune responses by neutralizing antibody (NAb) and T cell responses. The cohort then completed a follow-up survey to investigate the occurrence of breakthrough infections. Results: NAb levels were the highest in participants vaccinated with Moderna, followed by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. NAb levels decreased with time after vaccination with Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. T cell responses showed no significant difference among the different vaccines and remained stable up to 10 months after the study period for all vaccine types. In multivariate analyses, NAb responses (<95 U/mL) predicted breakthrough infection, whereas previous infection, the type of vaccine, and T cell responses did not. T cell responses to viral epitopes (<0.120 IU/mL) showed a significant association with the self-reported severity of COVID-19 disease. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that NAb responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination correlate with protection against infection, whereas the T cell memory responses may contribute to protection against severe disease but not against infection.

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.