Longitudinal Analysis and Comparison of Six Serological Assays up to Eight Months Post-COVID-19 Diagnosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
There is much data available concerning the initiation of the immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but long-term data are scarce.Methods
We thus longitudinally evaluated and compared the total and neutralizing immune response of 61 patients to SARS-CoV-2 infection up to eight months after diagnosis by RT-PCR using several commercial assays.Results
Among the 208 samples tested, the percentage of seropositivity was comparable between assays up to four months after diagnosis and then tended to be more heterogeneous between assays (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with a neutralizing titer decreased from 82% before two months postdiagnosis to 57% after six months. This decrease appeared to be more marked for patients under 65 years old and those not requiring hospitalization. The percentage of serology reversion at 6 months was from 11% with the WANTAI total assay to over 39% with the ABBOTT IgG assay. The neutralizing antibody titers decreased in parallel with the decrease of total antibody titers, with important heterogeneity between assays.Conclusions
In conclusion, serological tests show equivalent sensitivity in the first months after the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their performance later, postinfection, must be considered when interpreting the results.
SUBMITTER: Aubry A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8122444 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMost SARS-CoV-2 infected patients develop IgG antibodies within 2-3 weeks after symptom onset. Antibody levels have been shown to gradually decrease in the first months after infection, but few data are available at six months or later.MethodsA retrospective multi-center study was performed using 652 samples of 236 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected patients from 2 Belgian University hospitals. Patients were included if at least two samples were available (range 2-7 samples); including at least one sample collected 30 days or later after first positive PCR (range 0-240 days). Of those 236 patients, 19.1 % were classified as mild/asymptomatic (mild) and 80.9 % as moderate to critical (severe). IgG anti-nucleocapsid antibodies (anti-N) were measured using the Abbott Architect immunoassay.Results22.2 % of mild and 2.6 % of severe COVID-19 cases never seroconverted (p < 0.001). Of the mild patients who seroconverted 0-59 days after PCR; 18.8 %, 40.0 % and 61.1 % were seronegative in the windows 60-119 days, 120-179 days and 180-240 days after PCR, respectively. In severe patients, these numbers were 1.9 %, 10.8 % and 29.4 % respectively (p < 0.05 each). Antibody levels were significantly higher in severe patients compared to mild patients in each 60 day window (p < 0.001 each).ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 anti-N IgG antibody levels steadily decreased after 2 months up to 8 months post PCR. Of severe COVID-19 patients, 70.6 % remained positive up to eight months after infection. Antibody levels were significantly lower in mild SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and 61.1 % became seronegative within 6 months after the first positive PCR.
| S-EPMC7891078 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10508307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the impact of improved intensive care for COVID-19 patients on the prevalence of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS).DesignAmbispective cohort study.PatientsPost-intensive care unit COVID-19 patients from the first and second waves of COVID-19.MethodsPatients were evaluated at 6 months after infection. PICS was defined as the presence of a 1-min sit-to-stand test (1STS) score < 2.5th percentile or a Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) below the 2 standard deviation cut-off, or a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score ≥ 11.ResultsA total of 60 patients were included (34 from wave 1 and 26 from wave 2). Intensive care unit management improved between waves, with shorter duration of orotracheal intubation (7 vs 23.5 days, p = 0.015) and intensive care unit stay (6 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.006) in wave 2. PICS was present in 51.5% of patients after wave 1 and 52% after wave 2 (p = 0.971). Female sex and diabetes were significantly associated with PICS by multivariate analysis.ConclusionApproximately half of post-intensive care unit COVID-19 patients have 1 or more impairments consistent with PICS at 6 months, with an impact on quality of life and participation. Improved intensive care unit management was not associated with a decrease in the prevalence of PICS. Identification of patients at risk, particularly women and diabetic patients, is essential. Further studies of underlying mechanisms and the need for rehabilitation are essential to reduce the risk of PICS.
| S-EPMC9627539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Zika virus (ZIKV) is a mosquito-borne flavivirus that is responsible for recent explosive epidemics in the Americas. Notably, ZIKV infection during pregnancy has been found to cause congenital birth defects, including microcephaly, and ZIKV has been associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome in adults. Diagnosis and surveillance of Zika in the Americas have been challenging due to similar clinical manifestations and extensive antibody cross-reactivity with endemic flaviviral diseases, such as dengue. We evaluated four serological and two reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) methods in acute-phase (mean day, 1.8), early-convalescent-phase (mean day, 16.7), and late-convalescent-phase (mean, ~7 months) samples from the same individuals in a long-term pediatric cohort study in Nicaragua. Well-characterized samples from 301 cases of Zika, dengue, or non-Zika, nondengue febrile illnesses were tested. Compared to a composite reference, an in-house IgM antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA) and the NIAID-Biodefense and Emerging Infections (BEI) MAC-ELISA measuring IgM yielded sensitivities of 94.5% and 70.1% and specificities of 85.6% and 82.8%, respectively. The NS1 blockade-of-binding ELISA measuring anti-ZIKV NS1 antibody levels yielded sensitivities of 85.0% and 96.5% and specificities of 91.4% and 92.6% at early and late convalescence, respectively. An inhibition ELISA detecting total anti-ZIKV antibodies had sensitivity and specificity values of 68.3% and 58.3% for diagnosis and 94.0% and 98.6% for measuring annual infection incidence. Finally, the ZCD and Trioplex real-time RT-PCR assays detecting Zika, chikungunya, and dengue viruses both yielded a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 100%. Together, these assays resolve the urgent need for diagnostic and surveillance tools for countries affected by Zika virus infections.
| S-EPMC5824050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While lung ultrasonography (LUS) proved to be a useful diagnostic and prognostic tool in acute phase of COVID 19 pneumonia, its role in detecting long-term pulmonary sequelae has yet to be explored. In our prospective observational study we assessed the potential of LUS in detecting the presence of computed tomography (CT) fibrotic-like changes after 6 months from COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who were discharged with a diagnosis of severe COVID-19 pneumonia were enrolled. After 6 months from hospital discharge they underwent LUS, chest CT scan and pulmonary function tests. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between presence of symptoms, LUS score and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) at 6-month after hospital discharge and CT scan fibrotic-like changes. A second logistic model was performed to assess the value of some predefined baseline factors (age, sex, worst PaO2/FiO2, ventilator support, worst CRP value, worst D-dimer value and worst LUS score during hospitalization) to predict fibrotic-like changes on 6-month CT scan. Seventy-four patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-four (32%) showed lung abnormalities suitable for fibrotic-like changes. At multivariate logistic regression analysis LUS score after 6 months from acute disease was significantly associated with fibrotic-like pattern on CT scan. The second logistic model showed that D-dimer value was the only baseline predictive variable of fibrotic-like changes at multivariate analysis. LUS performed after 6 months from severe COVID-19 pneumonia may be a promising tool for detection and follow-up of pulmonary fibrotic sequelae.
| S-EPMC9472735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsVaccines, to limit SARS-CoV-2 infection, were produced and reliable assays are needed for their evaluation. The WHO produced an International-Standard (WHO-IS) to facilitate the standardization/comparison of serological methods. The WHO-IS, produced in limited amount, was never tested for reproducibility. This study aims at developing a reproducible and accessible working standard (WS) to complement the WHO-IS.Materials and methodsSera from vaccinated individuals were used to produce the WSs. The WHO-IS, the WSs and single serum samples (n = 48) were tested on 6 quantitative serological devices. Neutralization assays were performed for the 48 samples and compared with their antibody titers.ResultsThe WS carry an antibody titer 20-fold higher than the WHO-IS. It was reproducible, showed both good linearity and insignificant intra- and inter-laboratory variability. However, the WSs behave differently from the WHO-IS. Analysis of the 48 samples showed that single correlation factors are not sufficient to harmonize results from different assays. Yet, all the devices predict neutralization activity based on the antibody titer.ConclusionsA reproducible and highly concentrated WS, specific for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 Spike-glycoprotein was produced. Such characteristics make it particularly suited for the harmonization of commercially available assays and the consequent evaluation of post-vaccinated individuals.
| S-EPMC8378065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we evaluated and compared six SARS-CoV-2 serology kits including the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, OCD Vitros OCD Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total antibody assay, Roche Elecsys Anti SARS-CoV-2 assay, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total assay, and cPass surrogate viral neutralising antibody assay. A total of 336 non-duplicated residual serum samples that were obtained from COVID-19 confirmed patients (n=173) on PCR and negative controls (n=163) obtained pre-December 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic were used for the study. These were concurrently analysed on the different immunoassay platforms and correlated with clinical characteristics. Our results showed all assays had specificity ranging from 99.3% to 100.0%. Overall sensitivity across all days of symptoms, in descending order were OCD (49.1%, 95% CI 41.8-56.5%), cPass (44.8%, 95% CI 37.5-52.3%), Roche (41.6%, 95% CI 34.5-49.0%), Siemens (39.9%, 95% CI 32.9-47.3%), Abbott (39.8%, 95% CI 32.9-47.3%) and Beckman (39.6%, 95% CI 32.5-47.3%). Testing after at least 14 days from symptom onset is required to achieve AUCs greater than 0.80. OCD and cPass performed the best in terms of sensitivity for >21 days symptoms with 93.3% (95% CI, 73.5-99.2%) and 96.7% (95% CI, 82.8-99.9%), respectively. Both also shared the greatest concordance, kappa 0.963 (95% CI 0.885-1.0), p<0.001, and had the lowest false negative rates. Serology results should be interpreted with caution in certain cases. False negatives were observed in a small number of individuals with COVID-19 on immunosuppressive therapy, pauci-symptomatic or who received antiretroviral therapy. In conclusion, all assays exhibited excellent specificity and total antibody assays with spike protein configurations generally outperformed nucleocapsid configurations and IgG assays in terms of diagnostic sensitivity.
| S-EPMC7524664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 infection are now widely available for use in diagnostic laboratories. Limited data are available on the performance characteristics in different settings, and at time periods remote from the initial infection. Validation of the Abbott (Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG), DiaSorin (Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG) and Roche (Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2) assays was undertaken utilising 217 serum samples from 131 participants up to 7 months following COVID-19 infection. The Abbott and DiaSorin assays were implemented into routine laboratory workflow, with outcomes reported for 2764 clinical specimens. Sensitivity and specificity were concordant with the range reported by the manufacturers for all assays. Sensitivity across the convalescent period was highest for the Roche at 95.2-100% (95% CI 81.0-100%), then the DiaSorin at 88.1-100% (95% CI 76.0-100%), followed by the Abbott 68.2-100% (95% CI 53.4-100%). Sensitivity of the Abbott assay fell from approximately 5 months; on this assay paired serum samples for 45 participants showed a significant drop in the signal-to-cut-off ratio and 10 sero-reversion events. When used in clinical practice, all samples testing positive by both DiaSorin and Abbott assays were confirmed as true positive results. In this low prevalence setting, despite high laboratory specificity, the positive predictive value of a single positive assay was low. Comprehensive validation of serological assays is necessary to determine the optimal assay for each diagnostic setting. In this low prevalence setting we found implementation of two assays with different antibody targets maximised sensitivity and specificity, with confirmatory testing necessary for any sample which was positive in only one assay.
| S-EPMC8289701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 virus was first detected in late 2019 and circulated globally, causing COVID-19, which is characterised by sub-clinical to severe disease in humans. Here, we investigate the serological antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection during acute and convalescent infection using a cohort of (i) COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital, (ii) healthy individuals who had experienced 'COVID-19 like-illness', and (iii) a cohort of healthy individuals prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. We compare SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody detection rates from four different serological methods, virus neutralisation test (VNT), ID Screen® SARS-CoV-2-N IgG ELISA, Whole Antigen ELISA, and lentivirus-based SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype virus neutralisation tests (pVNT). All methods were able to detect prior infection with COVID-19, albeit with different relative sensitivities. The VNT and SARS-CoV-2-N ELISA methods showed a strong correlation yet provided increased detection rates when used in combination. A pVNT correlated strongly with SARS-CoV-2 VNT and was able to effectively discriminate SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive and negative serum with the same efficiency as the VNT. Moreover, the pVNT was performed with the same level of discrimination across multiple separate institutions. Therefore, the pVNT is a sensitive, specific, and reproducible lower biosafety level alternative to VNT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for diagnostic and research applications. Our data illustrate the potential utility of applying VNT or pVNT and ELISA antibody tests in parallel to enhance the sensitivity of exposure to infection.
| S-EPMC8074400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats.ObjectivesReal-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI®, BIORAD®, EUROIMMUN®, ABBOTT® and LIAISON®).ResultsFor hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI® to 69 % for LIAISON®). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses.ConclusionIn conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient's expectations in the face of this health crisis.
| S-EPMC7396207 | biostudies-literature