Search

Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are considered a valuable marker for measuring humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. However, live-virus neutralization tests (NTs) require high-biosafety-level laboratories and are time-consuming. Therefore, surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been widely applied, but unlike most anti-spike (S) antibody assays, NTs and sVNTs are not harmonized, requiring further evaluation and comparative analyses. This study compared seven commercial sVNTs and anti-S-antibody assays with a live-virus NT as a reference, using a panel of 720 single and longitudinal serum samples from 666 convalescent patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of these assays for detecting antibodies ranged from 48 to 94% after PCR-confirmed infection and from 56% to 100% relative to positivity in the in-house live-virus NT. Furthermore, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine which immunoassays were most suitable for assessing nAb titers exceeding a specific cutoff (NT titer, ≥80) and found that the NeutraLISA and the cPass assays reached the highest area under the curve (AUC), exceeding 0.91. In addition, when the assays were compared for their correlation with nAb kinetics over time in a set of longitudinal samples, the extent of the measured decrease of nAbs after infection varied widely among the evaluated immunoassays. Finally, in vaccinated convalescent patients, high titers of nAbs exceeded the upper limit of the evaluated assays' quantification ranges. Based on data from this study, we conclude that commercial immunoassays are acceptable substitutes for live-virus NTs, particularly when additional adapted cutoffs are employed to detect nAbs beyond a specific threshold titer. IMPORTANCE While the measurement of neutralizing antibodies is considered a valuable tool in assessing protection against SARS-CoV-2, neutralization tests employ live-virus isolates and cell culture, requiring advanced laboratory biosafety levels. Including a large sample panel (over 700 samples), this study provides adapted cutoff values calculated for seven commercial immunoassays (including four surrogate neutralization assays and a protein-based microarray) that robustly correlate with specific titers of neutralizing antibodies.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is characterized by substantial changes in the antigenic structure of the Spike (S) protein. Therefore, antibodies induced by primary Omicron infection lack neutralizing activity against earlier variants. In this study, we analyzed whether these antigenic changes impact the sensitivity of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Sera from 37 unvaccinated, convalescent individuals after putative primary Omicron infection were tested with a panel of 20 commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. As controls, we used samples from 43 individuals after primary infection with the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral wild-type strain. In addition, variant-specific live-virus neutralization assays were used as a reference for the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in the samples. Notably, in Omicron convalescents, there was a statistically significant reduction in the sensitivity of all antibody assays containing S or its receptor-binding-domain (RBD) as antigens. Furthermore, antibody levels quantified by these assays displayed a weaker correlation with Omicron-specific neutralizing antibody titers than with those against the wild type. In contrast, the sensitivity of nucleocapsid-protein-specific immunoassays was similar in wild-type and Omicron-infected subjects. In summary, the antigenic changes in the Omicron S lead to reduced immunoreactivity in the current commercial S- and RBD-specific antibody assays, impairing their diagnostic performance. IMPORTANCE This study demonstrates that the antigenic changes of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant affect test results from commercial Spike- and RBD-specific antibody assays, significantly diminishing their sensitivities and diagnostic abilities to assess neutralizing antibodies.

The validity of hemoglobin A1c (HgbA1c) is undergoing increasing scrutiny in the advanced CKD/ESRD (chronic kidney disease/end-stage renal disease) population, where it appears to be discordant from other glycemic indices. In the Glycemic Indices in Dialysis Evaluation (GIDE) Study, we sought to assess correlation of HgbA1c with casual glucose, glycated albumin, and serum fructosamine in a large group of diabetic patients on dialysis. From 26 dialysis facilities in the United States, 1758 diabetic patients (hemodialysis = 1476, peritoneal dialysis = 282) were enrolled in the first quarter of 2013. The distributions of HgbA1c and the other glycemic indices were analyzed. Intra-patient coefficients of variation and correlations among the four glycemic indices were determined. Patients with low HgbA1c values were both on higher erythropoietin (ESA) doses and more anemic. Serum glucose exhibited the highest intra-patient variability over a 3-month period; variability was modest among the other glycemic indices, and least with HgbA1c. Statistical analyses inclusive of all glycemic markers indicated modest to strong correlations. HgbA1c was more likely to be in the target range than glycated albumin or serum fructosamine, suggesting factors which may or may not be directly related to glycemic control, including anemia, ESA management, and iron administration, in interpreting HgbA1c values. These initial results from the GIDE Study clarify laboratory correlations among glycemic indices and add to concerns about reliance on HgbA1c in patients with diabetes and advanced kidney disease., (© 2015 International Society for Hemodialysis.)

African Americans require higher doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) during dialysis to manage anemia, but the influence of sickle cell trait and other hemoglobinopathy traits on anemia in dialysis patients has not been adequately evaluated. We performed a cross-sectional study of a large cohort of adult African-American hemodialysis patients in the United States to determine the prevalence of hemoglobinopathy traits and quantify their influence on ESA dosing. Laboratory and clinical data were obtained over 6 months in 2011. Among 5319 African-American patients, 542 (10.2%) patients had sickle cell trait, and 129 (2.4%) patients had hemoglobin C trait; no other hemoglobinopathy traits were present. Sickle cell trait was more common in this cohort than the general African-American population (10.2% versus 6.5%-8.7%, respectively, P<0.05). Among 5002 patients (10.3% sickle cell trait and 2.4% hemoglobin C trait) receiving ESAs, demographic and clinical variables were similar across groups, with achieved hemoglobin levels being nearly identical. Patients with hemoglobinopathy traits received higher median doses of ESA than patients with normal hemoglobin (4737.4 versus 4364.1 units/treatment, respectively, P=0.02). In multivariable analyses, hemoglobinopathy traits associated with 13.2% more ESA per treatment (P=0.001). Within subgroups, sickle cell trait patients received 13.2% (P=0.003) higher dose and hemoglobin C trait patients exhibited a similar difference (12.9%, P=0.12). Sensitivity analyses using weight-based dosing definitions and separate logistic regression models showed comparable associations. Our findings suggest that the presence of sickle cell trait and hemoglobin C trait may explain, at least in part, prior observations of greater ESA doses administered to African-American dialysis patients relative to Caucasian patients.

Diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease and an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality in dialysis patients. Glycemic control, utilizing serial measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), is generally recommended to limit end-organ damage, including cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We, along with others, have previously suggested that HbA1c may not be a reliable measure of glycemic control in dialysis patients, and have therefore explored the use of serum fructosamine (SF) as an alternative marker. The objective of this study was to compare HbA1c levels with SF in monitoring glycemic control and associated morbidity (infection and hospitalization) in diabetic patients in a large urban hemodialysis (HD) center. We enrolled 100 diabetic HD patients and followed them up prospectively for 3 years. Data on demographics, as well as biochemical and clinical data, including hospitalizations and infections, were recorded. The mean age was 63 years. In all 54% were women and the majority were African Americans (72%). As expected, HbA1c and albumin-corrected fructosamine (AlbF) levels were highly correlated and both were significantly associated with serum glucose. AlbF, however, was more highly correlated with mean glucose values when less than 150 mg/dl and was a more useful predictor of morbidity. By univariate logistic regression and by Poisson regression analysis, AlbF, but not HbA1c, was a significant predictor of hospitalization. Additionally, in patients dialyzed by arteriovenous (AV) access (that is, excluding those dialyzed via vascular catheters), AlbF, but not HbA1c, was a significant predictor of infection. In conclusion, AlbF is as reliable a marker as HbA1c for glycemic control in diabetic patients on HD, and may be advantageous for patients with serum glucose in a desirable therapeutic range (<150 mg/dl). In addition, AlbF, but not HbA1c, is associated with morbidity (hospitalizations and infections) in diabetic patients on HD.