Interlaboratory comparison for the Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group

The need for an efficacious vaccine against highly pathogenic filoviruses was reinforced by the devastating 2014-2016 outbreak of Ebola virus (EBOV) disease (EVD) in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia that resulted in over 28,000 cases and over 11,300 deaths. In addition, the 2018-2020 outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo currently has over 3,400 cases and over 2,200 deaths. A fully licensed vaccine and at least one other investigational vaccine are being deployed to combat this EVD outbreak. To support vaccine development and pre-clinical/clinical testing a Filovirus Animal Nonclinical Group (FANG) human anti-EBOV GP IgG ELISA was developed to measure anti-EBOV GP IgG antibodies. This ELISA is currently being used in multiple laboratories. Reported here is a characterization of an interlaboratory statistical analysis of the human anti-EBOV GP IgG ELISA as part of a collaborative study between five participating laboratories. Each laboratory used similar method protocols and reagents to measure anti-EBOV GP IgG levels in human serum samples from a proficiency panel consisting of ten serum samples created by the differential dilution of a serum sample positive for anti-GP IgG antibodies (BMIZAIRE105) with negative serum (BMI529). The total assay variability (inter- and intra-assay variability) %CVs observed at each laboratory ranged from 12.2 to 30.6. Intermediate precision (inter-assay variability) for the laboratory runs ranged from 8.9 to 21.7%CV and repeatability (intra-assay variability) %CVs ranged from 7.2 to 23.7. The estimated slope for the relationship between log.sub.10 (Target Concentration) and the log.sub.10 (Observed Concentration) across all five laboratories was 0.95 with a 90% confidence interval of (0.93, 0.97). Equivalence test results showed that the 90% confidence interval for the ratios for the sample-specific mean concentrations at the five individual labs to the overall laboratory consensus value were within the equivalence bounds of 0.80 to 1.25 for each laboratory and test sample, except for six test samples from Lab D, two samples from Lab B1, and one sample from Lab B2. The mean laboratory concentrations for Lab D were less than those from the other laboratories by 20% on average across the serum samples. The evaluation of the proficiency panel at these laboratories provides a limited assessment of assay precision (intermediate precision, repeatability, and total assay variability), dilutional linearity, and accuracy.