Clinical performance of three fully automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays targeting the nucleocapsid or spike proteins.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Favresse J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7753716 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical performance of three fully automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays targeting the nucleocapsid or spike proteins.
Favresse Julien J Cadrobbi Julie J Eucher Christine C Elsen Marc M Laffineur Kim K Dogné Jean-Michel JM Douxfils Jonathan J
Journal of medical virology 20201201 4
This study assesses the clinical performance of three anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays, namely EUROIMMUN anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (IgG) ELISA, Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (total antibodies) assay, and LIAISON anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins S1 and S2 (IgG) assay. One hundred and thirty-seven coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) samples from 96 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction confirmed patients were chosen to perform the sensitivity analysis. Non-SARS-CoV-2 sera (n = 141) with a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionCommercially available serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 detect antibodies to either the nucleocapsid or spike protein. Here we compare the performance of the Beckman-Coulter SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay to that of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG and Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid total antibody assays. In addition, we document the trend in nucleocapsid and spike antibodies in sequential samples collected from convalescent plasma donors.MethodsPlasma or serum samples from 20 individual SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive inpatients (n = 172), 20 individual convalescent donors with a previous RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 20), were deemed positive SARS-CoV-2 samples. RT-PCR-negative inpatients (n = 24), and 109 pre-SARS-CoV-2 samples were determined to be SARS-CoV-2 negative. Samples were assayed by the Abbott, Roche, and Beckman assays.ResultsAll three assays demonstrated 100% specificity. Abbott, Beckman, and Roche platforms had sensitivities of 98%, 93%, and 90% respectively, with the difference in sensitivity attributed primarily to samples from immunocompromised patients. After the exclusion of samples immunocompromised patients, all assays exhibited ≥ 95% sensitivity. In sequential samples collected from the same individuals, the Roche nucleocapsid antibody assay demonstrated continually increasing signal intensity, with maximal values observed at the last time point examined. In contrast, the Beckman spike IgG antibody signal peaked between 14 and 28 days post positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR and steadily declined in subsequent samples. Subsequent collections 51-200 days (median of 139 days) post positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from five inpatients and five convalescent donors revealed that spike and nucleocapsid antibodies remained detectable for several months after confirmed infection.ConclusionsThe three assays are sensitive and specific for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Nucleocapsid and spike antibodies were detectable for up to 200 days post-positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR but demonstrated markedly different trends in signal intensity.
| S-EPMC8188801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays against the spike (S) protein are useful for monitoring immune response after infection or vaccination. We compared the results of three chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott, Roche, Siemens) and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT, GenScript) using 191 sequential samples from 32 COVID-19 patients. All assays detected >90% of samples collected 14 days after symptom onset (Abbott 97.4%, Roche 96.2%, Siemens 92.3%, and GenScript 96.2%), and overall agreement among the four assays was 91.1% to 96.3%. When we assessed time-course antibody levels, the Abbott and Siemens assays showed higher levels in patients with severe disease (p < 0.05). Antibody levels from the three CLIAs were correlated (r = 0.763-0.885). However, Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed significant proportional differences between assays and converting results to binding antibody units (BAU)/mL still showed substantial bias. CLIAs had good performance in predicting sVNT positivity (Area Under the Curve (AUC), 0.959-0.987), with Abbott having the highest AUC value (p < 0.05). SARS-CoV-2 S protein antibody levels as assessed by the CLIAs were not interchangeable, but showed reliable performance for predicting sVNT results. Further standardization and harmonization of immunoassays might be helpful in monitoring immune status after COVID-19 infection or vaccination.
| S-EPMC8393767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim was to determine the antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleoprotein using four automated immunoassays and three ELISAs for the detection of total Ig antibodies (Roche) or IgG (Abbott, Diasorin, Snibe, Euroimmun, Mikrogen) in COVID-19 patients.MethodsSensitivity and dynamic trend to seropositivity were evaluated in 233 samples from 114 patients with moderate, severe or critical COVID-19 confirmed with PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. Specificity was evaluated in 113 samples collected before January 2020, including 24 samples from patients with non-SARS coronavirus infection.ResultsSensitivity for all assays was 100% (95% confidence interval 83.7-100) 3 weeks after onset of symptoms. Specificity varied between 94.7% (88.7-97.8) and 100% (96.1-100). Calculated at the cut-offs that corresponded to a specificity of 95% and 97.5%, Roche had the highest sensitivity (85.0% (79.8-89.0) and 81.1% (76.6-85.7), p < 0.05 except vs. Abbott). Seroconversion occurred on average 2 days earlier for Roche total Ig anti-N and the three IgG anti-N assays (Abbott, Mikrogen, Euroimmun) than for the two IgG anti-S assays (Diasorin, Euroimmun) (≥50% seroconversion day 9-10 vs. day 11-12 and p < 0.05 for percent seropositive patients day 9-10 to 17-18). There was no significant difference in the IgG antibody time to seroconversion between critical and non-critical patients.DiscussionSeroconversion occurred within 3 weeks after onset of symptoms with all assays and on average 2 days earlier for assays detecting IgG or total Ig anti-N than for IgG anti-S. The specificity of assays detecting anti-N was comparable to anti-S and excellent in a challenging control population.
| S-EPMC7834107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel viral pathogen that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in humans, has spread worldwide since its identification in late 2019. The pandemic produced an accelerated development of new serological techniques for diagnosis.MethodsWe evaluated two commercial assays for serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, approved by the Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) in Argentina: Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2; Roche for nucleocapsid total antibody detection, and VIDAS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 bioMérieux for spike protein IgG antibody detection. Sensitivity was assessed using a panel of 92 plasma samples from recovered COVID-19 patients who were positive for RT-PCR and positive for neutralizing antibodies by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and/or positive for IgG antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA). Specificity was determined studying 71 plasma samples collected during year 2018 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests.ResultsSensitivity was 97.8% and 98.9% for the Roche and bioMérieux assays, respectively, specificity: 98.5% (Roche) and 97.1% (bioMérieux), positive predictive value (PPV): 98.9% (Roche) and 97.8% (bioMérieux), and negative predictive value: (NPV) 97.2% (Roche) and 98.5% (bioMérieux). Additionally, Cohen's kappa coefficient demonstrated high concordance (k=0.950) between Roche and bioMérieux.DiscussionIn conclusion, our results evidenced a very good performance for the nucleocapsid antibody assay (Roche) and the spike protein antibody assay (bioMérieux), thus both platforms are equally adequate for indirect diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection through total antibodies and IgG antibody detection, respectively.
| S-EPMC9562483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance along with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the probable causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were evaluated using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of false positive results from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, assays lacked reproducibility. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with the same antigen that was used for coating ELISAs prior to performing the assay), suggesting positive reaction could be attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by the spiking, suggesting positive reaction was not attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the corresponding antigen, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.
| S-EPMC7605638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 and caused a dramatic pandemic. Serological assays are used to check for immunization and assess herd immunity. We evaluated commercially available assays designed to quantify antibodies directed to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) antigen, either total (Wantaï SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA) or IgG (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant on Alinity, Abbott, and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, Diasorin). The specificities of the Wantaï, Alinity, and Liaison assays were evaluated using 100 prepandemic sera and were 98, 99, and 97%, respectively. The sensitivities of all three were around 100% when tested on 35 samples taken 15 to 35 days postinfection. They were less sensitive for 150 sera from late infections (>180 days). Using the first WHO international standard (NIBSC), we showed that the Wantai results were concordant with the NIBSC values, while Liaison and Alinity showed a proportional bias of 1.3 and 7, respectively. The results of the 3 immunoassays were significantly globally pairwise correlated and for late infection sera (P < 0.001). They were correlated for recent infection sera measured with Alinity and Liaison (P < 0.001). However, the Wantai results of recent infections were not correlated with those from Alinity or Liaison. All the immunoassay results were significantly correlated with the neutralizing antibody titers obtained using a live virus neutralization assay with the B1.160 SARS-CoV-2 strain. These assays will be useful once the protective anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer has been determined. IMPORTANCE Standardization and correlation with virus neutralization assays are critical points to compare the performance of serological assays designed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in order to identify their optimal use. We have evaluated three serological immunoassays based on the virus spike antigen that detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a microplate assay and two chemiluminescent assays performed with Alinity (Abbott) and Liaison (Diasorin) analysers. We used an in-house live virus neutralization assay and the first WHO international standard to assess the comparison. This study could be useful to determine guidelines on the use of serological results to manage vaccination and treatment with convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibodies.
| S-EPMC8694121 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of three anti-S and one anti-N assays that were available to the project in detecting antibody levels after three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson). It also aimed to assess the association of age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccine timing, and vaccine side effects on antibody levels in a cohort of 827 individuals. In September 2021, 698 vaccinated individuals donated blood samples as part of the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) COVID-19 Immunity Study. These individuals also participated in a comprehensive survey covering demographic information, vaccination status, and associated side effects. Additionally, 305 age- and gender-matched samples were obtained from the ADLM 2015 sample bank as pre-COVID-19-negative samples. All these samples underwent antibody level analysis using three anti-S assays, namely Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman assay), Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Ortho assay), Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens assay), and one anti-N antibody assay: Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab assay (BioRad assay). A total of 827 samples (580 COVID-19 samples and 247 pre-COVID-19 samples) received results for all four assays and underwent further analysis. Beckman, Ortho, and Siemens anti-S assays showed an overall sensitivity of 99.5%, 97.6%, and 96.9%, and specificity of 90%, 100%, and 99.6%, respectively. All three assays indicated 100% sensitivity for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine and boosters, and over 99% sensitivity for the Pfizer vaccine. Sensitivities varied from 70.4% (Siemens), 81.5% (Ortho), and 96.3% (Beckman) for individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. BioRad anti-N assays demonstrated 46.2% sensitivity and 99.25% specificity based on results from individuals with self-reported infection. The highest median anti-S antibody levels were measured in individuals who received the Moderna vaccine, followed by Pfizer and then Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Higher anti-S antibody levels were significantly associated with younger age and closer proximity to the last vaccine dose but were not associated with gender, race, or ethnicity. Participants with higher anti-S levels experienced significantly more side effects as well as more severe side effects (e.g., muscle pain, chills, fever, and moderate limitations) (p < 0.05). Anti-N antibody levels only indicated a significant correlation with headache. This study indicated performance variations among different anti-S assays, both among themselves and when analyzing individuals with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Caution should be exercised when conducting large-scale studies to ensure that the same platform and/or assays are used for the most effective interpretation of the data.
| S-EPMC10891747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A better understanding of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response is necessary to finely evaluate commercial serological assays but also to predict protection against reinfection and to help the development of vaccines. For this reason, we monitored the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in infected patients. In order to assess the time of seroconversion, we used 151 samples from 30 COVID-19 inpatients and monitored the detection kinetics of anti-S1, anti-S2, anti-RBD and anti-N antibodies with in-house ELISAs. We observed that specific antibodies were detectable in all inpatients 2 weeks post-symptom onset and that the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid and RBD was more sensitive than the detection of the S1 or S2 subunits. Using retroviral particles pseudotyped with the spike of the SARS-CoV-2, we also monitored the presence of neutralizing antibodies in these samples as well as 25 samples from asymptomatic individuals that were shown SARS-CoV-2 seropositive using commercial serological tests. Neutralizing antibodies reached a plateau 2 weeks post-symptom onset and then declined in the majority of inpatients but they were undetectable in 56% of asymptomatic patients. Our results indicate that the SARS-CoV-2 does not induce a prolonged neutralizing antibody response. They also suggest that induction of neutralizing antibodies is not the only strategy to adopt for the development of a vaccine. Finally, they imply that anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies should be titrated to optimize convalescent plasma therapy.
| S-EPMC7604306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe evaluated the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Snibe SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG spike chemiluminescent immunoassays and compared them to existing Roche/Abbott nucleocapsid and Abbott IgM spike assays.MethodsWe enrolled 184 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive samples and 215 controls (172 pre-pandemic, and 43 cross-reactivity) to evaluate the Roche spike antibody (anti-SARS-CoV-2-S) assay. For the Snibe evaluation, we included 119 RT-PCR positive samples and 249 controls (200 pre-pandemice, 49 cross-reactivity). 98 cases had been tested on three spike assays (Roche total antibody, Snibe IgG and Abbott IgM).ResultsThe Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2-S assay had a CV of 0.5% (0.82U/mL) and 2.3% (8.72U/mL) and was linear from 1.16 to 240U/mL. The Snibe assay was linear from 6.43 to 77.7AU/mL, CV of 5.5% (0.43AU/mL) and 8.8% (0.18AU/mL). The Snibe spike assay was significantly more sensitive than the Abbott IgG assay at 0-6 days POS (35.2% vs 3.6%, mean difference 29.6%, 95% CI 17.5 to 41.8, p < 0.0001). Optimized LORs significantly improved the sensitivity of the Roche spike (48.1%-56.7%) and both nucleocapsid assays (Roche 43.3%-65.5%, Abbott 3.6%-18.5%) in early disease.ConclusionAlthough both spike assays showed higher sensitivity than their nucleocapsid counterparts, lower, optimized LORs provided the most significant improvements to sensitivity.
| S-EPMC8513513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this paper, we have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance in comparison with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were compared using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of positive signals from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, positivity varied with assay repetition. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with analyte prior to performing the assay). In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by analyte spiking. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the analyte, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.
| S-EPMC7418763 | biostudies-literature