Studying temporal titre evolution of commercial SARS-CoV-2 assays reveals significant shortcomings of using BAU standardization for comparison

Abstract

BackgroundMeasuring specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies has become one of the main epidemiological tools to survey the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but also vaccination response. The WHO made available a set of well-characterized samples derived from recovered individuals to allow normalization between different quantitative anti-Spike assays to defined Binding Antibody Units (BAU).MethodsTo assess sero-responses longitudinally, a cohort of ninety-nine SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive subjects was followed up together with forty-five vaccinees without previous infection but with two vaccinations. Sero-responses were evaluated using a total of six different assays: four measuring anti-Spike proteins (converted to BAU), one measuring anti-Nucleocapsid proteins and one SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization. Both cohorts were evaluated using the Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA anti-S1 IgG and the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 assay.ResultsIn SARS-CoV-2-convalesce subjects, the BAU-sero-responses of Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA anti-S1 IgG and Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 peaked both at 47 (43–51) days, the first assay followed by a slow decay thereafter (> 208 days), while the second assay not presenting any decay within one year. Both assay values in BAUs are only equivalent a few months after infection, elsewhere correction factors up to 10 are necessary. In contrast, in infection-naive vaccinees the assays perform similarly.ConclusionThe results of our study suggest that the establishment of a protective correlate or vaccination booster recommendation based on different assays, although BAU-standardised, is still challenging. At the moment the characteristics of the available assays used are not related, and the BAU-standardisation is unable to correct for that.