Five Commercial Immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Determination and Their Comparison and Correlation with the Virus Neutralization Test.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Simanek V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8065578 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance of recently launched commercial immunoassays in serum and plasma samples. METHODS:51 serum samples from 26 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after end of quarantine and 25 control patients were analyzed using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope to assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 20 matching pairs of serum and plasma samples were included to analyze comparability between different specimens. RESULTS:Overall, a diagnostic sensitivity of 92.3%, 96.2-100% and 100% with a respective diagnostic specificity of 100%, 100% and 84-86% for the immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope were determined. In total, 84-96% of samples were correctly classified as negative and 92.3-95.2% as positive. The level of concordance between plasma- and serum-based testing diverged between the assays (Epitope r2 = 0.97; Euroimmun r2 = 0.91; Roche r2 = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS:The immunoassays from Euroimmun and Roche revealed a higher specificity than the Epitope assay without a substantial drop of diagnostic sensitivity. Significant differences between plasma- and serum-based testing highlights the need for determination of appropriate cut-offs per specimen type. Hence, there is an urgent need for test harmonization and establishment of quality standards for an appropriate use of COVID-19 serological tests.
| S-EPMC7343640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays.MethodsWe evaluated 12 commercial immunoassays, including three automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (Abbott, Roche, and Siemens), three enzyme immunoassays (Bio-Rad, Euroimmun, and Vircell), five lateral flow immunoassays (Boditech Med, SD biosensor, PCL, Sugentech, and Rapigen), and one surrogate neutralizing antibody assay (GenScript) in sequential samples from 49 COVID-19 patients and 10 seroconversion panels.ResultsThe positive percent agreement (PPA) of assays for a COVID-19 diagnosis ranged from 84.0% to 98.5% for all samples (>14 days after symptom onset), with IgM or IgA assays showing higher PPAs. Seroconversion responses varied across the assay type and disease severity. Assays targeting the spike or receptor-binding domain protein showed a tendency for early seroconversion detection and higher index values in patients with severe disease. Index values from SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody assays (three automated assays, one LFIA, and three EIAs) showed moderate to strong correlations with the neutralizing antibody percentage (r=0.517-0.874), and stronger correlations in patients with severe disease and in assays targeting spike protein. Agreement among the 12 assays was good (74.3%-96.4%) for detecting IgG or total antibodies.ConclusionsPositivity rates and seroconversion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies vary depending on the assay kits, disease severity, and antigen target. This study contributes to a better understanding of antibody response in symptomatic COVID-19 patients using currently available assays.
| S-EPMC8203431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReliable high-throughput serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are urgently needed for the effective containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it is of crucial importance to understand the strength and duration of immunity after infection, and to make informed decisions concerning the activation or discontinuation of physical distancing restrictions.MethodsIn 184 serum samples from 130 COVID-19 patients and 54 SARS-CoV-2 negative subjects, the analytical and clinical performances of four commercially available chemiluminescent assays (Abbott SARS-Cov-2 IgG, Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2, Ortho SARS-CoV-2 total and IgG) and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Diesse ENZY-WELL SARS-CoV-2 IgG) were evaluated and compared with the neutralization activity achieved using the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT).FindingsPrecision results ranged from 0.9% to 11.8% for all assays. Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated linearity of results at concentrations within the cut-off value. Overall, sensitivity ranged from 78.5 to 87.7%, and specificity, from 97.6 to 100%. On limiting the analysis to samples collected 12 days after onset of symptoms, the sensitivity of all assays increased, the highest value (95.2%) being obtained with VITRO Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total and Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG. The strongest PRNT50 correlation with antibody levels was obtained with ENZY-Well SARS-CoV-2 IgG (R2adj = 0.569).InterpretationThe results confirmed that all immunoassays had an excellent specificity, whereas sensitivity varied across immunoassays, depending strongly on the time interval between symptoms onset and sample collection. Further studies should be conducted to achieve a stronger correlation between antibody measurement and PRNT50 in order to obtain useful information for providing a better management of COVID-19 patients, effective passive antibody therapy, and developing a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC7640894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Determination of neutralizing antibody titers is still considered the gold standard for infection protection. A full virus neutralization test (VNT) with replication-competent, infectious SARS-CoV-2, is labor-intensive and requires Biosafety Level 3 certified laboratories. Therefore, several commercial SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been developed that aim to detect neutralizing antibodies targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the viral spike glycoprotein (S). Neutralizing antibodies to the RBD block its interaction with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor protein. Here, we compared a full virus neutralization test (VNT) with two SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNT) and validated them in two cohorts of i) convalescent SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and ii) COVID vaccinated individuals. The sVNTs showed highly different results both, compared to the VNT-titers and also between the two cohorts. This indicates that currently, sVNT provide a qualitative instead of a quantitative measurement of neutralizing antibodies. The findings in this work show that the cutoff levels for sVNTs might need to be readjusted for convalescent and vaccinated individuals.
| S-EPMC9212436 | 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:Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 virus is mainly based on direct detection. Determination of specific antibodies has been used mostly for epidemiological reasons. However, select immunoassays showed good correlation to plaque reduction virus neutralization test (PRNT) in smaller patient cohorts, which suggests their potential as predictors of virus neutralization titer. A total of 3,699 samples from Covid-19 patients were included in the multicentric study performed in the Czech Republic. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were evaluated by 8 commercial antibody assays. Simultaneously, PRNT evaluations were performed with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.258 variant. All immunoassays showed an overall high true positive diagnostic value ranging from 79.17 to 98.04%. Several commercial EIA methods showed highly positive correlation between the assay results and PRNT levels, e.g., Liaison CoV-2 TrimericS IgG DiaSorin (Spearman r = 0.8833; Architect SASRS-CoV-2 IgG Abbott (r = 0.7298); NovaLisa SARS-CoV-2 IgG NovaTec (r = 0.7103) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG Euroimmun (r = 0.7094). While this correlation was less positive for other assays, those, conversely, presented higher true positive values. For most immunoassays, the positive percent agreement of the results was ≥ 95% in sera exhibiting PRNT levels of 1:80 and higher. The assays tested have shown variable correlation to PRNT. Those possessing high positive predictive values serve well as qualitative tests, while others can be utilised as quantitative tests highly predictive of neutralization antibody levels.
| S-EPMC10792077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveNumerous immunoassays for detecting antibodies directed against SARS-CoV-2 have been rapidly developed and released. Validations of these have been performed with a limited number of samples. The lack of standardisation might lead to significantly different results. This study compared ten automated assays from six vendors in terms of sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility.MethodsThis study compared ten fully automated immunoassays from the following vendors: Diasorin, Epitope Diagnostics, Euroimmun, Roche, YHLO, and Snibe. The retrospective part of the study included patients with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection, and controls comprised patients with a suspected infection, in whom the disease was excluded. Furthermore, biobanked sera were taken as negative controls (n = 97). The retrospective part involved four groups: (1) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection (n = 183); (1B) suspected COVID-19 infection (n = 167) without a qRT-PCR result but positive serological results from at least two different assays, and suspected COVID-19 infection due to a positive serological result from the Roche assay (n = 295); (2) biobanked sera obtained from patients before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 97) as negative controls; and (2A) probably COVID-19-negative sera with negative serological results from at least two different assays (n = 152).ResultsOverall diagnostic sensitivities were: Euroimmun (IgA) 87%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgG) 83%; YHLO (IgG) 77%; Roche (IgM/IgG) 77%; Euroimmun (IgG) 75%; Diasorin (IgG) 53%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgM) 52%; Snibe (IgG) 47%; YHLO (IgM) 35%; and Snibe (IgM) 26%. Diagnostic specificities were: YHLO (IgG) 100%; Roche, 100%; Snibe (IgM/IgG) 100%; Diasorin (IgG) 97%; Euroimmun (IgG) 94%; YHLO (IgM) 94%; Euroimmun (IgA) 83%.ConclusionAssays from different vendors substantially varied in terms of their performance. These findings might facilitate selection of appropriate serological assays.
| S-EPMC7725057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic in 2020. Testing is crucial for mitigating public health and economic effects. Serology is considered key to population-level surveillance and potentially individual-level risk assessment. However, immunoassay performance has not been compared on large, identical sample sets. We aimed to investigate the performance of four high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays and a novel 384-well ELISA.MethodsWe did a head-to-head assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), SARS-CoV-2 Total assay (Siemens, Munich, Germany), and a novel 384-well ELISA (the Oxford immunoassay). We derived sensitivity and specificity from 976 pre-pandemic blood samples (collected between Sept 4, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016) and 536 blood samples from patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, collected at least 20 days post symptom onset (collected between Feb 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess assay thresholds.FindingsAt the manufacturers' thresholds, for the Abbott assay sensitivity was 92·7% (95% CI 90·2-94·8) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4-100%); for the DiaSorin assay sensitivity was 96·2% (94·2-97·7) and specificity was 98·9% (98·0-99·4); for the Oxford immunoassay sensitivity was 99·1% (97·8-99·7) and specificity was 99·0% (98·1-99·5); for the Roche assay sensitivity was 97·2% (95·4-98·4) and specificity was 99·8% (99·3-100); and for the Siemens assay sensitivity was 98·1% (96·6-99·1) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4-100%). All assays achieved a sensitivity of at least 98% with thresholds optimised to achieve a specificity of at least 98% on samples taken 30 days or more post symptom onset.InterpretationFour commercial, widely available assays and a scalable 384-well ELISA can be used for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing to achieve sensitivity and specificity of at least 98%. The Siemens assay and Oxford immunoassay achieved these metrics without further optimisation. This benchmark study in immunoassay assessment should enable refinements of testing strategies and the best use of serological testing resource to benefit individuals and population health.FundingPublic Health England and UK National Institute for Health Research.
| S-EPMC7511171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) have diminished the effectiveness of vaccines and are associated with a rebound in the number of COVID-19 cases globally. These variants contain mutations at the spike (S) protein receptor binding site (RBD), which affect antibody binding. Current commercially available antibody assays were developed before the VOCs emerged. It is unclear whether the levels of these commercially available antibody assays can predict the neutralizing antibody titers against the VOCs. In this study, we sought to determine the correlation between the binding antibody concentration and microneutralization antibody titer against the beta variant.MethodsThis study included 58 COVID-19 patients. The concentrations of IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein RBD and nucleocapsid (N) protein were measured using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay and the SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, respectively. The neutralization antibody titer against the wild type lineage A SARS-CoV-2 and against the beta variant (B.1.351) was determined using a conventional live virus neutralization test.ResultsThe geometric mean MN titer (GMT) against the beta variant was significantly lower than that against the wild type lineage A virus (5.6 vs. 47.3, p < 0.0001). The anti-RBD IgG had a better correlation with the neutralizing antibody titer than that of the anti-N IgG assay against the wild type lineage A virus (Spearman rho, 0.5901 vs. 0.3827). However, the correlation between the anti-RBD or the anti-N IgG and the MN titer against the beta variant was poor.ConclusionsCurrently available commercial antibody assays may not predict the level of neutralizing antibodies against the variants. A new generation of antibody tests specific for variants are required.
| S-EPMC8700542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeroprevalence studies of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, including asymptomatic and past infections, are important to estimate the scale of the disease outbreak and to establish quarantine measures. We evaluated the clinical performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays available in Korea for use in seroprevalence studies.MethodsThe sensitivity, specificity, cross-reactivity, and interference of five SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays were evaluated using the following: 398 serum samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients, 510 negative control samples from before 2018 (pre-pandemic), 163 serum samples from patients with SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and other viral infections, and five samples for the interference study.ResultsThe sensitivities of the five assays ranged from 92.2% to 98%, and their specificities, including cross-reactivity and interference, ranged from 97.5% to 100%. The agreement rates were excellent (kappa >0.9). Adjustment of the cutoff values could be considered through ROC curve analysis. The positive predictive values of the individual assays varied from 3.5% to 100% at a 0.1% prevalence but were as high as ≥95% when two assays were combined.ConclusionsThe prevalence of COVID-19 in Korea is considered to be exceptionally low at present; thus, we recommend using a combination of two or more SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays rather than a single assay. These results could help select SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays for COVID-19 seroprevalence studies in Korea.
| S-EPMC8368235 | biostudies-literature