Clinical utility of quantitative immunoassays and surrogate virus neutralization tests for predicting neutralizing activity against the SARS‐CoV‐2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 variants

Abstract

AbstractDeveloping new antibody assays for emerging SARS‐CoV‐2 variants is challenging. SARS‐CoV‐2 surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNT) targeting Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 have been devised, but their performance needs to be validated in comparison with quantitative immunoassays. First, using 1749 PRNT‐positive sera, we noticed that log‐transformed optical density (OD) ratio of wild‐type (WT) sVNT exhibited better titer‐correlation with plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) than % inhibition value. Second, we tried 798 dilutional titration tests with 103 sera, but nonlinear correlation between OD ratio and antibody concentration limited titration of sVNT. Third, the titer‐correlations of two sVNT kits for BA.1 and two quantitative immunoassays for WT were evaluated with BA.1 and BA.5 PRNT. All tested kits exhibited a linear correlation with PRNT titers, but the sVNT kits exhibited high false‐negative rates (cPass‐BA.1 kit, 45.4% for BA.1 and 44.2% for BA.5; STANDARD F‐BA.1 kit, 1.9% for BA.1 and 2.2% for BA.5), while quantitative immunoassays showed 100% sensitivity. Linear mixed‐effects model suggested superior titer‐correlation with PRNT for quantitative immunoassays compared to sVNT kits. Taken together, the use of quantitative immunoassays for WT, rather than rapid development of new kits, would be practical for predicting neutralizing activities against emerging new variants.