Performance evaluation of the Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific Quantitative IgG test by comparison with the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test and clinical assessment

Background Despite the worldwide campaigns of COVID-19 vaccinations, the pandemic is still a major medical and social problem. The Ortho VITROS SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific quantitative IgG (VITROS S-IgG) assay has been developed to assess neutralizing antibody (NT antibody) against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) antibodies. However, it has not been evaluated in Japan, where the total cases and death toll are lower than the rest of the world. Methods The clinical performance of VITROS S-IgG was evaluated by comparing with the NT antibody levels measured by the surrogate virus neutralizing antibody test (sVNT). A total of 332 serum samples from 188 individuals were used. Of these, 219 samples were from 75 COVID-19 patients: 96 samples from 20 severe/critical cases (Group S), and 123 samples from 55 mild/moderate cases (Group M). The remaining 113 samples were from 113 healthcare workers who had received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Results VITROS S-IgG showed good correlation with the cPass sVNT assay (Spearman rho = 0.91). Both VITROS S-IgG and cPass sVNT showed significantly higher plateau levels of antibodies in Group S compared to Group M. Regarding the humoral immune responses after BNT162b2 vaccination, individuals who were negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-specific antibodies had statistically lower titers of both S-IgG and sVNT compared to individuals with a history of COVID-19 and individuals who were positive for N-specific antibodies without history of COVID-19. In individuals who were positive for N-specific antibodies, S-IgG and sVNT titers were similar to individuals with a history of COVID-19. Conclusions Although the automated quantitative immunoassay VITROS S-IgG showed a reasonable correlation with sVNT antibodies, there is some discrepancy between Vitros S-IgG and cPass sVNT in milder cases. Thus, VITROS S-IgG can be a useful diagnostic tool in assessing the immune responses to vaccination and herd immunity. However, careful analysis is necessary to interpret the results.

[1]  M. Hiki,et al.  Author Correction: Performance and usefulness of a novel automated immunoassay HISCL SARS-CoV-2 Antigen assay kit for the diagnosis of COVID-19 , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[2]  Y. Tabe,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibody assay and IgG assay using the Dimension EXL 200 in the Tokyo Metropolitan area , 2021, Heliyon.

[3]  Y. Kreiss,et al.  Waning Immune Humoral Response to BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine over 6 Months , 2021, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  K. Park,et al.  Performance evaluation of three automated quantitative immunoassays and their correlation with a surrogate virus neutralization test in coronavirus disease 19 patients and pre‐pandemic controls , 2021, Journal of clinical laboratory analysis.

[5]  E. Oh,et al.  Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Spike Antibody Response in COVID-19 Patients Using Three Fully Automated Immunoassays and a Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test , 2021, Diagnostics.

[6]  A. Landay,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses in Infection-Naive or Previously Infected Individuals After 1 and 2 Doses of the BNT162b2 Vaccine , 2021, JAMA network open.

[7]  L. Stamatatos,et al.  Evaluation of Cell-Based and Surrogate SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assays , 2021, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[8]  P. Klenerman,et al.  SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) , 2021, The Lancet.

[9]  M. Hiki,et al.  Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Japanese COVID-19 patients , 2021, PloS one.

[10]  Kazuhisa Takahashi,et al.  Comparison of the clinical performance and usefulness of five SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. , 2021, PloS one.

[11]  L. Gieselmann,et al.  Kinetics and correlates of the neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans , 2021, bioRxiv.

[12]  Bjoern Peters,et al.  Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection , 2021, Science.

[13]  E. Hod,et al.  Distinct antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults across the COVID-19 clinical spectrum , 2020, Nature Immunology.

[14]  A. van Belkum,et al.  Considerations for diagnostic COVID-19 tests , 2020, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[15]  L. Summers,et al.  The COVID-19 Pandemic and the $16 Trillion Virus. , 2020, JAMA.

[16]  Daniel B Larremore,et al.  Rethinking Covid-19 Test Sensitivity - A Strategy for Containment. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  J. Peiris,et al.  Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test for detection of antibody in human, canine, cat and hamster sera , 2020, medRxiv.

[18]  M. Chen,et al.  A SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test based on antibody-mediated blockage of ACE2–spike protein–protein interaction , 2020, Nature Biotechnology.

[19]  Liyan Wen,et al.  Kinetics of viral load and antibody response in relation to COVID-19 severity. , 2020, The Journal of clinical investigation.

[20]  M. Farcet,et al.  Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with eight commercially available immunoassays , 2020, Journal of Clinical Virology.

[21]  Florian Krammer,et al.  Serology assays to manage COVID-19 , 2020, Science.

[22]  Shashwat Shivam,et al.  Modeling shield immunity to reduce COVID-19 epidemic spread , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[23]  Akihide Ryo,et al.  Interpreting Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2. , 2020, JAMA.

[24]  O. Tsang,et al.  High neutralizing antibody titer in intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 , 2020, Emerging microbes & infections.