Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses and Seroconversion in COVID-19 Patients Using Twelve Commercial Immunoassays.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Severe 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.Methods
We 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.Results
The 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.Conclusions
Positivity 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.
SUBMITTER: Yun S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8203431 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has been suggested for (1) screening populations for disease prevalence, (2) diagnostics, and (3) guiding therapeutic applications. Here, we conducted a detailed clinical evaluation of four Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in samples from acutely ill COVID-19 patients and in two negative cohorts.Methods443 serum specimens from serial sampling of 29 COVID-19 patients were used to determine clinical sensitivities. Patients were stratified for the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Individual serum specimens from a pre-COVID-19 cohort of 238 healthy subjects and from a PCR-negative clinical cohort of 257 patients were used to determine clinical specificities. All samples were measured side-by-side with the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgG), Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgA) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun AG, Lübeck, Germany) and the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA (Roche Diagnostics International, Rotkreuz, Switzerland).ResultsMedian seroconversion occurred earlier in ARDS patients (8-9 days) than in non-ARDS patients (11-17 days), except for EUR N-IgG. Rates of positivity and mean signal ratios in the ARDS group were significantly higher than in the non-ARDS group. Sensitivities between the four tested immunoassays were equivalent. In the set of negative samples, the specificity of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgA) was lower (93.9%) compared to all other assays (≥98.8%) and the specificity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (IgG) was lower (98.8%) than that of Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%).ConclusionsSerial sampling in COVID-19 patients revealed earlier seroconversion and higher signal ratios of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a potential risk marker for the development of ARDS, suggesting a utility for antibody testing in acutely diseased patients.
| S-EPMC8118560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an ongoing debate as to whether SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be found in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 disease. Currently, there is no consensus on whether the antibodies, if present, are protective. Our regular measurements of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, starting in July 2020, have provided us with the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the five different immunoassays. A total of 149 patients were enrolled in our study. We measured the samples using each immunoassay, then performing a virus neutralization test and comparing the results of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with this test. We observed that the production of neutralizing antibodies is age-dependent. Elderly patients have a higher proportion of high neutralizing titers than young patients. Based on our results, and in combination with the literature findings, we can conclude that the serological SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement is a helpful tool in the fight against COVID-19. The assays can provide information about the patient's previous contact with the virus. Anti-spike protein assays correlate well with the virus neutralization test and can be used in the screening of potential convalescent plasma donors.
| S-EPMC8065578 | 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: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: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: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:OBJECTIVES:We aimed to evaluate the role of rapid serological tests in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. METHODS:This retrospective study enrolled 16 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and 58 COVID-19 negative patients at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-month period. Serial serum samples were collected and tested for antibody response using four point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) (ALLTEST 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test). Time-dependent detection sensitivity and timeliness of seroconversion were determined and compared between the four POC rapid tests. RESULTS:The overall sensitivity and specificity of the four tests for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after 3 weeks of symptom onset were 100% and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the rapid tests used for detection of IgM and IgG separately and those used for detection of combined total antibody (mainly IgM/IgG). There was no significant difference between the four POC rapid tests in terms of time required for determining seroconversion of COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia demonstrated shorter seroconversion time than those without pneumonia. CONCLUSION:Though the POC antibody rapid tests based on LFIA showed reliable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, the results of these tests should be interpreted and applied appropriately in the context of antibody dynamic of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 patients complicated with pneumonia exhibited earlier anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response than COVID-19 patients without pneumonia.
| S-EPMC7295501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe interdependencies of viral replication and the host immune response in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain to be defined. We investigated the viral determinants of antibody response, the predictors of nonseroconversion, and the role of antibodies on viral dynamics.MethodsThis was a prospective study in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 that was microbiologically confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Serial nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs and plasma samples were obtained for measuring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and antibodies (total and S-IgG/N-IgG), respectively.ResultsOf 132 patients included, 99 (75%) showed positive antibody titers after a median (Q1-Q3) of 11 (8-14) days. The median (Q1-Q3) follow-up was 74.5 (63.0-87.0) days. In an adjusted linear regression model, time to seropositivity was inversely associated with peak log SARS-CoV-2 viral load (P = .009) and positively with time to viral clearance (P = .004). Adjusted predictors of S-IgG levels were time to viral clearance (P < .001), bilateral lung infiltrates on admission (P = .011), and the time-dependent SARS-CoV-2 RNA (P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2 RNA area under the curve (P = .001). Thirty-three (25%) patients showed undetectable antibody titers. Patients who did not seroconvert had higher cycle threshold values of RT-PCR (38.0 vs 28.0; P < .001), had shorter time to viral clearance (3.0 vs 41.0; P < .001), and were more likely to have SARS-CoV-2 only detected on fecal samples (P < .001). Nonseroconvertors had also lower levels of blood inflammatory biomarkers on admission and lower disease severity.ConclusionsViral replication determines the magnitude of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, which, in turn, contributes to viral clearance. COVID-19 patients who do not seroconvert exhibit a differential virological and clinical profile.
| S-EPMC7881755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe performance of the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgM, Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgA, Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA, and Trillium IgG/IgM rapid assays was evaluated in Jamaica.MethodsDiagnostic sensitivities of the assays were assessed by testing serum samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed persons and diagnostic specificity was assessed by testing serum samples collected during 2018-2019 from healthy persons and from persons with antibodies to a wide range of viral infections.ResultsSerum samples collected ≥14 days after onset of symptoms, or an initial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive test for asymptomatics, showed diagnostic sensitivities ranging from 67.9 to 75.0% when including all possible disease severities and increased to 90.0-95.0% when examining those with moderate to critical disease. Grouping moderate to critical disease showed a significant association with a SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive result for all assays. Diagnostic specificity ranged from 96.7 to 100.0%. For all assays examined, SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values of the initial nasopharyngeal swab sample testing positive were significantly different for samples testing antibody positive versus negative.ConclusionsThese data from a predominantly African descent Caribbean population show comparable diagnostic sensitivities and specificities for all testing platforms assessed and limited utility of these tests for persons with asymptomatic and mild infections.
| S-EPMC7891043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Seroepidemiology is an important tool to characterize the epidemiology and immunobiology of SARS-CoV-2 but many immunoassays have not been externally validated raising questions about reliability of study findings. To ensure meaningful data, particularly in a low seroprevalence population, assays need to be rigorously characterized with high specificity. Methods We evaluated two commercial (Roche Diagnostics and Epitope Diagnostics IgM/IgG) and two non-commercial (Simoa and Ragon/MGH IgG) immunoassays against 68 confirmed positive and 232 pre-pandemic negative controls. Sensitivity was stratified by time from symptom onset. The Simoa multiplex assay applied three pre-defined algorithm models to determine sample result. Results The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays each registered 1/232 false positive, the primary Simoa model registered 2/232 false positives, and the Epitope registered 2/230 and 3/230 false positives for the IgG and IgM assays respectively. Sensitivity >21 days post symptom-onset was 100% for all assays except Epitope IgM, but lower and/or with greater variability between assays for samples collected 9-14 days (67-100%) and 15-21 days (69-100%) post-symptom onset. The Simoa and Epitope IgG assays demonstrated excellent sensitivity earlier in the disease course. The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays were less sensitive during early disease, particularly among immunosuppressed individuals. Conclusions The Epitope IgG demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity. The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays registered rare false positives with lower early sensitivity. The Simoa assay primary model had excellent sensitivity and few false positives.
| S-EPMC7325183 | biostudies-literature