Comparative analysis of eleven SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays and neutralisation data: time to enhance standardisation and correlation of protection

Abstract

Background To infer a reliable SARS-CoV-2 antibody protection level from a serological test, an appropriate quantitative threshold and solid equivalence across serological tests are needed. Additionally, tests should show a solid correlation with neutralising assays and with the protection observed in large population cohorts even against emerging variants. Objectives We studied convalescent and vaccinated populations using 11 commercial antibody assays. Results were compared to evaluate discrepancies across tests. Neutralisation capacity was measured in a subset of the samples with a lentiviral-based assay. Methods Serum from convalescent (n = 121) and vaccinated individuals (n = 471, 260 with Comirnaty, 110 with Spikevax, and 96 with Vaxzevria) was assessed using 11 different assays, including two from Abbott, Euroimmun, Liaison, Roche, and Vircell, and one from Siemens. A spike protein-lentiviral vector with a fluorescent reporter was used for neutralisation assay of serum from convalescent (n = 26) and vaccinated (n = 39) individuals. Results Positivity ranged between 81.3 and 94.3% after infection and 99.4 and 99.7% after vaccination, depending on the assay. Both cohorts showed a high level of qualitative agreement across tests (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.598 and 0.719 for convalescent and vaccinated respectively). Spikevax vaccine recipients showed the highest level of antibodies in all tests. Effectiveness of each test predicting SARS-CoV-2 neutralising capacity depended on assay type and target, with CLIA and anti-S being more effective than ELISA and anti-N assays, respectively. Conclusions High-throughput immunoassays are good predictors of neutralising capacity. Updated targets and better standardisation would be required to find an effective correlate of protection, especially to account for antibodies against new variants.