PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Muecksch, Frauke AU - Wise, Helen AU - Batchelor, Becky AU - Squires, Maria AU - Semple, Elizabeth AU - Richardson, Claire AU - McGuire, Jacqueline AU - Clearly, Sarah AU - Furrie, Elizabeth AU - Greig, Neil AU - Hay, Gordon AU - Templeton, Kate AU - Lorenzi, Julio C.C. AU - Hatziioannou, Theodora AU - Jenks, Sara AU - Bieniasz, Paul D. TI - Longitudinal analysis of clinical serology assay performance and neutralising antibody levels in COVID19 convalescents AID - 10.1101/2020.08.05.20169128 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.08.05.20169128 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/06/2020.08.05.20169128.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/06/2020.08.05.20169128.full AB - Objectives To investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with timeDesign Retrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort.Setting NHS outpatient clinicsParticipants Individuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalizationMain outcome measures The sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed.Results The three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays.Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the NHS and Grants from the National Institutes of Allergy and infectious Diseases R37AI640003 (to PDB) and R01AI078788 (to TH). There were no study sponsors. The funders played no role in the design, analysis or reporting of this research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:NHS Lothian BioResourceAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesRaw de-identified data for serology measurements and NT50 measurements is available from the authors on request.