Background: Several commercial surrogate Virus Neutralization Tests (sVNTs) have been developed in the last year. Neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies through interaction with Spike protein Receptor Binding Domain (S-RBD) can block the virus from entering and infecting host cells. However, there is a lack of information about the functional activity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that may be associated with protective responses. For these reasons, to counteract viral infection, the conventional virus neutralization test (VNT) is still considered the gold standard. The aim of this study was to contribute more and detailed information about sVNTs' performance, by determining in vitro the anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody concentration using four different commercial assays and then comparing the obtained data to VNT. Methods: Eighty-eight samples were tested using two chemiluminescence assays (Snibe and Mindray) and two ELISA assays (Euroimmun and Diesse). The antibody titers were subsequently detected and quantified by VNT. Results: The overall agreement between each sVNT and VNT was 95.45% for Euroimmun and 98.86% for Diesse, Mindray and Snibe. Additionally, we investigated whether the sVNTs were closer to the gold standard than traditional anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays S-RBD or S1 based, finding a higher agreement mean value for sVNTs (98.01 ± 1.705% vs 95.45 ± 1.921%; p < 0.05). Furthermore, Spearman's statistical analysis for the correlation of sVNT versus VNT showed r = 0.666 for Mindray; r = 0.696 for Diesse; r = 0.779 for Mindray and r = 0.810 for Euroimmun. Conclusions: Our data revealed a good agreement between VNT and sVNTs. Despite the VNT still remains the gold standard, the sVNT might be a valuable tool for screening wider populations.

A large number of immunoassays have been developed to detect specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; however, not always they are functional to neutralize the virus. The reference test for the anti-spike neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) ability to counteract the viral infection is the virus neutralization test (VNT). Great interest is developing on reliable serological assays allowing antibodies concentration and antibody protective titer correlation. The aim of our study was to detect nAbs serum levels in paucisymptomatic, symptomatic and vaccinated subjects, to find a cut-off value able to protect from virus infection. nAbs serum levels were detected by a competitive automated immunoassay, in association to VNT with the SARS-CoV-2 original and British variant strains. The median nAbs concentrations were: 281,3 BAU/ml for paucisymptomatics; 769,4 BAU/ml for symptomatics; 351,65 BAU/ml for the vaccinated cohort; 983 BAU/ml considering only the second dose vaccinated individuals. The original strain VNT analysis showed 1:80 median neutralization titers in paucisymptomatic and vaccinated subjects; 1:160 in symptomatic patients; 1:160 in the second dose groups. The British variant VNT analysis showed lower neutralization titers in paucisymptomatic and vaccinated groups (1:40); the same titer in symptomatic patients (1:160); the second dose group confirmed the original strain titer (1:160). In conclusion, our data showed optimal correlations with a proportional increase between neutralizing activity and antibody concentration, making nAbs detection a good alternative to virus neutralization assays, difficult to carry out in routine laboratories. Finally, ROC curve analysis established a cut-off of 408,6 BAU/ml to identify subjects with a low risk of infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection has proven to be extremely contagious and has spread rapidly all over the world. A key aspect in limiting the virus diffusion is to ensure early and accurate diagnosis. Serological assays could be an alternative in increasing testing capabilities, particularly when used as part of an algorithmic approach combined with molecular analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a second generation chemiluminescent automated immunoassay able to detect anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies. Data are carried out on healthy subjects and other infectious diseases pre‐pandemic sera, as controls, and on two different coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patient groups (early and late infection time). Data obtained have been analyzed in terms of precision, linearity, sensitivity and specificity. Specificities are: 100% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and 98% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM, in all patient groups. Sensitivities are: 97%, 100%, and 98% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and 87%, 83%, and 86% for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM in the early infection, in the late infection and in the total patient group, respectively. The Mindray anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM assays demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity, indicating that IgG and IgM simultaneous detection is useful even in the early phases of infection.

No abstract

With the widespread use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, a rapid and reliable method to detect SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) is extremely important for monitoring vaccine effectiveness and immunity in the population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the RapiRead™ reader and the TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb rapid point-of-care (POC) test for quantitative measurement of antibodies against the spike protein receptor-binding domain of severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different biological matrices compared to chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) methods. Ninety-four samples were collected and analyzed using a RapiRead™ reader and TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb kits for detecting neutralizing antibodies, and then using two CLIAs. The data were compared statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test for more than two groups or the Mann-Whitney test for two groups. Specificity and sensitivity were evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Good correlation was observed between the rapid lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test system and both CLIA methods. RapiRead™ reader/TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb vs. Maglumi: correlation coefficient (r) = 0.728 for all patients; r = 0.841 for vaccinated patients. RapiRead™ reader/TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb vs. Mindray: r = 0.6394 in all patients; r = 0.8724 in vaccinated patients. The time stability of the POC serological test was also assessed considering two times of reading, 12 and 14 minutes. The data revealed no significant differences. The use of a RapiRead™ reader and TestNOW™ COVID-19 NAb assay is a quantitative, rapid, and valid method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and could be a useful tool for screening studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and assessing the efficacy of vaccines in a non-laboratory context.