An international comparison of anti-SARS-COV-2 assays used for seroprevalence surveys from blood component providers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and objectives
Access to large pools of healthy adult donors advantageously positions blood component providers to undertake anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies. While numerous seroprevalence reports have been published by blood operators during the COVID-19 pandemic, details on the assay used has not been well documented. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the diversity of assays being used by blood operators and assess how this may affect seroprevalence estimates.Materials and methods
We surveyed 49 blood component providers from 39 countries. Questionnaire included information on the number and identity of assays used, the detected immunoglobulin(s) and target antigen, and performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity).Results
Thirty-eight of the 49 contacted blood suppliers provided at least partial responses. The results indicate that 19 commercial and five in-house serology assays have been used by surveyed blood operators. The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay was the most commonly used kit and utilized by 15 blood suppliers. Two assays did not detect IgG, but detected either IgM/IgA or IgM. 68·2% of assays targeted the spike protein and 50% the nucleocapsid protein, while 18·2% targeted both viral proteins. The sensitivity and specificity of IgG-specific assays ranged from 71·9% to 100% and from 96·2% to 100%, respectively. As of 18 October 2020, the seroprevalence was below 5% in 10 of 14 countries reporting.Conclusion
Our results highlight the diversity of assays being used. Analyses comparing blood donor seroprevalence across countries should consider assay characteristics with optimization of signal/cut-off ratios and consistent methodology to adjust for waning antibody.
SUBMITTER: Lewin A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242559 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys provide critical information to assess the burden of COVID-19, describe population immunity, and guide public health strategies. Early in the pandemic, most of these surveys were conducted within high-income countries, leaving significant knowledge gaps in low-and middle-income (LMI) countries. To address this gap, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is supporting serosurveys internationally. We conducted a descriptive analysis of international serosurveys supported by CDC during May 12, 2020-February 28, 2022, using an internal tracker including data on the type of assistance provided, study design, population surveyed, laboratory testing performed, and status of implementation. Since the beginning of the pandemic, CDC has supported 72 serosurveys (77 serosurvey rounds) in 35 LMI countries by providing technical assistance (TA) on epidemiologic, statistical, and laboratory methods, financial assistance (FA), or both. Among these serosurvey rounds, the majority (61%) received both TA and FA from CDC, 30% received TA only, 3% received only FA, and 5% were part of informal reviews. Fifty-four percent of these serosurveys target the general population, 13% sample pregnant women, 7% sample healthcare workers, 7% sample other special populations (internally displaced persons, patients, students, and people living with HIV), and 18% assess multiple or other populations. These studies are in different stages of implementation, ranging from protocol development to dissemination of results. They are conducted under the leadership of local governments, who have ownership over the data, in collaboration with international partners. Thirty-four surveys rounds have completed data collection. CDC TA and FA of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys will enhance the knowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic in almost three dozen LMI countries. Support for these surveys should account for current limitations with interpreting results, focusing efforts on prospective cohorts, identifying, and forecasting disease patterns over time, and helping understand antibody kinetics and correlates of protection.
| S-EPMC9490761 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Comparing seroprevalence and antibody kinetics in three different commercially available assays for SARS-CoV-2. Serostatus of COVID-19 patients was analyzed 5 months and 10 months after their infection, using three different assays: Diasorin LIAISON, Euroimmun, Abbott Diagnostics ARCHITECT. Seropositivity at baseline differed significantly depending on the assay (Diasorin 81%, Euroimmun 83%, Abbott 59%). At follow-up antibody levels detected in the Diasorin assay were stable, while there was a significant loss in seropositivity in the Euroimmun and Abbott assays. There are significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 antibody kinetics based on the specific assay used.
| S-EPMC8295301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2-React 2).DesignDiagnostic accuracy study.SettingLaboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts.ParticipantsSensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing.InterventionsLaboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards.Main outcome measuresThe accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards.ResultsThe sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs.ConclusionsOne new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.
| S-EPMC7921617 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere are limited existing data describing the training methods used to educate tobacco cessation treatment providers around the world.AimsTo measure the prevalence of tobacco cessation treatment content, skills training and teaching methods reported by tobacco treatment training programs across the world.MethodsWeb-based survey in May-September 2013 among tobacco cessation training experts across six geographic regions and four World Bank income levels. Response rate was 73% (84 of 115 countries contacted).ResultsOf 104 individual programs from 84 countries, most reported teaching brief advice (78%) and one-to-one counseling (74%); telephone counseling was uncommon (33%). Overall, teaching of knowledge topics was more commonly reported than skills training. Programs in lower income countries less often reported teaching about medications, behavioral treatments and biomarkers and less often reported skills-based training about interviewing clients, medication management, biomarker measurement, assessing client outcomes, and assisting clients with co-morbidities. Programs reported a median 15 hours of training. Face-to-face training was common (85%); online programs were rare (19%). Almost half (47%) included no learner assessment. Only 35% offered continuing education.ConclusionNearly all programs reported teaching evidence-based treatment modalities in a face-to-face format. Few programs delivered training online or offered continuing education. Skills-based training was less common among low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is a large unmet need for tobacco treatment training protocols which emphasize practical skills, and which are more rapidly scalable than face-to-face training in LMICs.
| S-EPMC5976454 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMalaria is a mosquito-borne infectious disease caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Plasmodium. As migration of populations from endemic areas to Europe and overseas recreational travel to endemic regions increase, there is also a growing risk of transfusion-transmitted tropical diseases by blood components.Material and methodsIn the present study two routine Plasmodium spp. ELISA (CAPTIA™ Malaria EIA, Trinity Biotech, and Malaria EIA, BioRad) were compared with a new commercial ELISA (ELISA IgG, EUROIMMUN). From December 1, 2015 until November 30, 2016, 1,096 plasma samples from blood donors with a potential risk of malaria infection were collected at two blood transfusion centres in Germany and Switzerland.ResultsThe samples were tested comparatively with the ELISA from EUROIMMUN and the routine test used at the respective centre. Thirty-four of 595 (5.7%) tested blood samples from centre 1 and 49 of 501 (9.8%) tested blood samples from centre 2 showed reactivity on either or both ELISAs. All 83 reactive samples were sent for confirmation to the Diagnostic Centre of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) in Basel, Switzerland. Sixteen samples, which previously were reactive in the routine Plasmodium spp. EIA assays, were proven positive after confirmation testing (i.e., 4 positive and 12 inconclusive results), indicating an anti-Plasmodium antibody prevalence in blood donations of 1.5%. From these 16 reactive samples, 13 were also detected by the index test, resulting in an assay sensitivity of 81.2%. A specificity of 98.6% was calculated (1,065/1,080 confirmed negative samples). The overall agreement with the reference centre was 95.8% in centre 1 and 94% in centre 2.ConclusionThe comparison of the new EUROIMMUN ELISA and the established CAPTIA™ Malaria EIA (Trinity Biotech) and Malaria EIA (BioRad) used for routine blood donor screening in two laboratory blood donation centres revealed that all tested ELISAs show comparable sensitivities and are equally suitable for anti-Plasmodium antibody screening in blood banks.
| S-EPMC8578808 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSelpercatinib and pralsetinib induce deep and durable responses in patients with advanced RET fusion-positive lung and thyroid cancer. RET fusion testing strategies with rapid and reliable results are critical given recent FDA approval. Here, we assess various clinical assays in a large pan-cancer cohort.Experimental designTumors underwent DNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) with reflex to RNA-based NGS if no mitogenic driver or if a RET structural variant of unknown significance (SVUS) were present. Canonical DNA-level RET fusions and RNA-confirmed RET fusions were considered true fusions. Break-apart FISH and IHC performance were assessed in subgroups.ResultsA total of 171 of 41,869 patients with DNA NGS harbored RET structural variants, including 139 canonical fusions and 32 SVUS. Twelve of 32 (37.5%) SVUS were transcribed into RNA-level fusions, resulting in 151 oncogenic RET fusions. The most common RET fusion-positive tumor types were lung (65.6%) and thyroid (23.2%). The most common partners were KIF5B (45%), CCDC6 (29.1%), and NCOA4 (13.3%). DNA NGS showed 100% (46/46) sensitivity and 99.6% (4,459/4,479) specificity. FISH showed 91.7% (44/48) sensitivity, with lower sensitivity for NCOA4-RET (66.7%, 8/12). A total of 87.5% (7/8) of RET SVUS negative for RNA-level fusions demonstrated rearrangement by FISH. The sensitivity of IHC varied by fusion partner: KIF5B sensitivity was highest (100%, 31/31), followed by CCDC6 (88.9%, 16/18) and NCOA4 (50%, 6/12). Specificity of RET IHC was 82% (73/89).ConclusionsAlthough DNA sequencing has high sensitivity and specificity, RNA sequencing of RET SVUS is necessary. Both FISH and IHC demonstrated lower sensitivity for NCOA4-RET fusions.
| S-EPMC8285056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neutralizing antibodies are a major correlate of protection for many viruses including the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Thus, vaccine candidates should potently induce neutralizing antibodies to render effective protection from infection. A variety of in vitro assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies has been described. However, validation of the different assays against each other is important to allow comparison of different studies. Here, we compared four different SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays using the same set of patient samples. Two assays used replication competent SARS-CoV-2, a focus forming assay and a TCID50-based assay, while the other two assays used replication defective lentiviral or vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based particles pseudotyped with SARS-CoV-2 spike. All assays were robust and produced highly reproducible neutralization titers. Titers of neutralizing antibodies correlated well between the different assays and with the titers of SARS-CoV-2 S-protein binding antibodies detected in an ELISA. Our study showed that commonly used SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays are robust and that results obtained with different assays are comparable.
| S-EPMC7824240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neutralizing antibody assessments play a central role in human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) vaccine development but it is unclear which assay, or combination of assays, will provide reliable measures of correlates of protection. To address this, an international collaboration (NeutNet) involving 18 independent participants was organized to compare different assays.Each laboratory evaluated four neutralizing reagents (TriMab, 447-52D, 4E10, sCD4) at a given range of concentrations against a panel of 11 viruses representing a wide range of genetic subtypes and phenotypes. A total of 16 different assays were compared. The assays utilized either uncloned virus produced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (virus infectivity assays, VI assays), or their Env-pseudotyped (gp160) derivatives produced in 293T cells (PSV assays) from molecular clones or uncloned virus. Target cells included PBMC and genetically-engineered cell lines in either a single- or multiple-cycle infection format. Infection was quantified by using a range of assay read-outs that included extracellular or intracellular p24 antigen detection, RNA quantification and luciferase and beta-galactosidase reporter gene expression.PSV assays were generally more sensitive than VI assays, but there were important differences according to the virus and inhibitor used. For example, for TriMab, the mean IC50 was always lower in PSV than in VI assays. However, with 4E10 or sCD4 some viruses were neutralized with a lower IC50 in VI assays than in the PSV assays. Inter-laboratory concordance was slightly better for PSV than for VI assays with some viruses, but for other viruses agreement between laboratories was limited and depended on both the virus and the neutralizing reagent.The NeutNet project demonstrated clear differences in assay sensitivity that were dependent on both the neutralizing reagent and the virus. No single assay was capable of detecting the entire spectrum of neutralizing activities. Since it is not known which in vitro assay correlates with in vivo protection, a range of neutralization assays is recommended for vaccine evaluation.
| S-EPMC2640999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The study aims to estimate and compare the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence, the fraction of asymptomatic or subclinical infections in the population, determine the demographic risk factors and analyse the antibody development at different time points among adults in Bhubaneswar city, India. This was a serial three-round cross-sectional, community-based study where participants were selected from the residents of Bhubaneswar city using multi-stage random sampling. Blood samples were collected during household visits along with demographic and clinical data from every participant. Total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody present in serum was assessed using the electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay platform. Temporal comparisons of the community seroprevalence were performed against the detected number of cumulative cases, active cases, recoveries and deaths. A total of 3693 participants were enrolled in this study with a cumulative non-response rate of 18.33% in all the three rounds. The gender-weighted seroprevalence for the city in the first round was 1.55% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-2.58), second round was 5.27% (95% CI 4.13-6.59) and in the third round was 49.04% (95% CI 46.39-51.68). In the first round, the seroprevalence was found to be highest in the elderly population, whereas the seroprevalence for the second and third phases was highest in the age group of 30-39 years. Seroprevalence showed an increasing trend over the three time periods, with the highest seropositivity rates among individuals sampled between 16 and 18 September 2020. By the third round, 93.93% of those who had previously been tested positive by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction had seroconversion and 46.57% of those who had been tested negative also showed seroconversion. Infection to case ratio during first round was 27.05, for second round and third round it was 5.62 and 17.91, respectively.
| S-EPMC8207548 | biostudies-literature