Dataset Information

Assessment of serological assays for identifying high titer convalescent plasma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by the largest mobilization of therapeutic convalescent plasma (CCP) in over a century. Initial identification of high titer units was based on dose-response data using the Ortho VITROS IgG assay. The proliferation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 serological assays and non-uniform application has led to uncertainty about their interrelationships. The purpose of this study was to establish correlations and analogous cutoffs between multiple serological assays.

Methods

We compared the Ortho, Abbott, Roche, an anti-spike (S) ELISA, and a virus neutralization assay. Relationships relative to FDA-approved cutoffs under the CCP emergency use authorization were identified in convalescent plasma from a cohort of 79 donors from April 2020.

Results

Relative to the neutralization assay, the spearman r value of the Ortho Clinical, Abbott, Roche, anti-S ELISA assays was 0.65, 0.59, 0.45, and 0.76, respectively. The best correlative index for establishing high-titer units was 3.87 signal-to-cutoff (S/C) for the Abbott, 13.82 cutoff index for the Roche, 1:1412 for the anti-S ELISA, 1:219 by the neutralization assay, and 15.9 S/C by the Ortho Clinical assay. The overall agreement using derived cutoffs compared to a neutralizing titer of 1:250 was 78.5% for Abbott, 74.7% for Roche, 83.5% for the anti-S ELISA, and 78.5% for Ortho Clinical.

Discussion

Assays based on antibodies against the nucleoprotein were positively associated with neutralizing titers and the Ortho assay, although their ability to distinguish FDA high-titer specimens was imperfect. The resulting relationships help reconcile results from the large body of serological data generated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Farnsworth CW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8440373 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) assay is a critical component for measurement of immunogenicity in influenza vaccine development. It is unknown if the results can be influenced by sample type and anticoagulants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different sample collection methods, in particular different anticoagulants, and choice of plasma or serum, on influenza virus serological assays. METHODS:Blood samples from thirty donors previously immunized against influenza viruses were collected using six different types of blood collection tubes, two of which collect serum and four of which contain various anticoagulants for collecting plasma. Serum: (1) serum separator tubes (SST); and (2) Plus Plastic serum "red-top serum" tubes. Plasma: (3) spray-coated K2 ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) tubes: (4) Sodium Heparin tubes; (5) Citrate tubes with 3.2% sodium citrate solution; and (6) Glass Blood Collection tubes with acid citrate dextrose. Samples were tested against three different influenza viruses (A/California/07/2009 (H1N1pdm09), A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2), and B/Massachusetts/2/2012) for hemagglutination inhibition titer and virus neutralization titer via a microneutralization (MN) assay, and data compared to that obtained for standard serum sample collected in SST. RESULTS:HAI and MN titers against type A viruses were within two dilutions compared to SST collection method over 96% of the time irrespective of sample type or anticoagulant. However, HAI titers for type B virus were more variable across different collection methods. EDTA plasma samples were greater than two dilutions higher than SST serum samples 70% (21 of 30 samples) of the time. In contrast, MN titers were within two dilutions over 96% of the time, with the highest deviation noted in acid citrate dextrose plasma samples (3 of 30 samples tested, 10%). CONCLUSIONS:These data provide useful guidelines for sample collection and serology testing when screening: (i) influenza vaccine immunogenicity antibody response; (ii) antibody responses to newly emerging viral strains; and (iii) clinical samples for anti-influenza antibody activity.