Serological response in health care workers after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine using six automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cuykx M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272050 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:COVID19 convalescent patient plasma units with high titer neutralizing antibody can be used to treat patients with severe disease. Therefore, in order to select suitable donors, neutralizing antibody titer against SARS CoV-2 needs to be determined. Because the neutralization assay is highly demanding from several points of view, a pre-selection of sera would be desirable to minimize the number of sera to be tested. In this study, a total of 140 serum samples that had been titrated for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody by microneutralization assay were also tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody using 5 different tests: Architect® immunoassay (Abbott Diagnostics), detecting IgG against the nucleocapsid protein, LIAISON XL® (Diasorin) detecting IgG against a recombinant form of the S1/S2 subunits of the spike protein, VITROS® (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics), detecting IgG against a recombinant form of the spike protein, and ELISA (Euroimmun AG), detecting IgA or IgG against a recombinant form of the S1 subunit. To determine which immunoassay had the highest chance to detect sera with neutralizing antibodies above a certain threshold, we compared the results obtained from the five immunoassays with the titers obtained by microneutralization assay by linear regression analysis and by using receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden's index. Our results indicate that the most suitable method to predict sera with high Nab titer is Euroimmun® IgG, followed closely by Ortho VITROS® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG.
| S-EPMC8093006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibody waning after SARS-CoV-2 infection may result in reduction in long-term immunity following natural infection and vaccination, and is therefore a major public health issue. We undertook prospective serosurveillance in a large cohort of healthy adults from the start of the epidemic in England.MethodsClinical and non-clinical healthcare workers were recruited across three English regions and tested monthly from March to November 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein and nucleoprotein (N) antibodies using five different immunoassays. In positive individuals, antibody responses and long-term trends were modelled using mixed effects regression.FindingsIn total, 2246 individuals attended 12,247 visits and 264 were seropositive in ≥ 2 assays. Most seroconversions occurred between March and April 2020. The assays showed > 85% agreement for ever-positivity, although this changed markedly over time. Antibodies were detected earlier with Abbott (N) but declined rapidly thereafter. With the EuroImmun (S) and receptor-binding domain (RBD) assays, responses increased for 4 weeks then fell until week 12-16 before stabilising. For Roche (N), responses increased until 8 weeks, stabilised, then declined, but most remained above the positive threshold. For Roche (S), responses continued to climb over the full 24 weeks, with no sero-reversions. Predicted proportions sero-reverting after 52 weeks were 100% for Abbott, 59% (95% credible interval 50-68%) Euroimmun, 41% (30-52%) RBD, 10% (8-14%) Roche (N) < 2% Roche (S).InterpretationTrends in SARS-CoV-2 antibodies following infection are highly dependent on the assay used. Ongoing serosurveillance using multiple assays is critical for monitoring the course and long-term progression of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
| S-EPMC7982645 | 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:ObjectivesAs the world transitions into a new era of the COVID-19 pandemic in which vaccines become available, there is an increasing demand for rapid reliable serological testing to identify individuals with levels of immunity considered protective by infection or vaccination.MethodsWe used 34 SARS-CoV-2 samples to perform a rapid surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT), applicable to many laboratories as it circumvents the need for biosafety level-3 containment. We correlated results from the sVNT with five additional commonly used SARS-CoV-2 serology techniques: the microneutralisation test (MNT), in-house ELISAs, commercial Euroimmun- and Wantai-based ELISAs (RBD, spike and nucleoprotein; IgG, IgA and IgM), antigen-binding avidity, and high-throughput multiplex analyses to profile isotype, subclass and Fc effector binding potential. We correlated antibody levels with antibody-secreting cell (ASC) and circulatory T follicular helper (cTfh) cell numbers.ResultsAntibody data obtained with commercial ELISAs closely reflected results using in-house ELISAs against RBD and spike. A correlation matrix across ten measured ELISA parameters revealed positive correlations for all factors. The frequency of inhibition by rapid sVNT strongly correlated with spike-specific IgG and IgA titres detected by both commercial and in-house ELISAs, and MNT titres. Multiplex analyses revealed strongest correlations between IgG, IgG1, FcR and C1q specific to spike and RBD. Acute cTfh-type 1 cell numbers correlated with spike and RBD-specific IgG antibodies measured by ELISAs and sVNT.ConclusionOur comprehensive analyses provide important insights into SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity across distinct serology assays and their applicability for specific research and/or diagnostic questions to assess SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses.
| S-EPMC7916820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are urgently needed for diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how recently commercially available, high-throughput immunoassays, using different recombinant SARS-CoV-2 antigens, perform with clinical samples. Focusing on IgG and total antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of four automated immunoassays (Abbott Architect™ i2000 (N protein-based)), Roche cobas™ e 411 analyzer (N protein-based, not differentiating between IgA, IgM or IgG antibodies), LIAISON®XL platform (S1 and S2 protein-based), VIRCLIA® automation system (S1 and N protein-based) in comparison to two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG (S1 protein-based) and Virotech SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA (N protein-based)) and an in-house developed plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. When calculating the overall sensitivity, in a time frame of 49 days after first PCR-positivity, the PRNT as gold standard, showed the highest sensitivity with 93.3% followed by the dual-target assay for the VIRCLIA® automation system with 89%. The overall sensitivity in the group of N protein-based assays ranged from 66.7 to 77.8% and in the S protein-based-assays from 71.1 to 75.6%. Five follow-up samples of three individuals were only detected in either an S and/or N protein-based assay, indicating an individual different immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and the influence of the used assay in the detection of IgG antibodies. This should be further analysed. The specificity of the examined assays was ≥ 97%. However, because of the low or unknown prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, the examined assays in this study are currently primarily eligible for epidemiological investigations, as they have limited information in individual testing.
| S-EPMC7263247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The development of neutralizing antibodies (nAb) against SARS-CoV-2, following infection or vaccination, is likely to be critical for the development of sufficient population immunity to drive cessation of the COVID19 pandemic. A large number of serologic tests, platforms and methodologies are being employed to determine seroprevalence in populations to select convalescent plasmas for therapeutic trials, and to guide policies about reopening. However, tests have substantial variability in sensitivity and specificity, and their ability to quantitatively predict levels of nAb is unknown. We collected 370 unique donors enrolled in the New York Blood Center Convalescent Plasma Program between April and May of 2020. We measured levels of antibodies in convalescent plasma using commercially available SARS-CoV- 2 detection tests and in-house ELISA assays and correlated serological measurements with nAb activity measured using pseudotyped virus particles, which offer the most informative assessment of antiviral activity of patient sera against viral infection. Our data show that a large proportion of convalescent plasma samples have modest antibody levels and that commercially available tests have varying degrees of accuracy in predicting nAb activity. We found the Ortho Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Ig and IgG high throughput serological assays (HTSAs), as well as the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, quantify levels of antibodies that strongly correlate with nAb assays and are consistent with gold-standard ELISA assay results. These findings provide immediate clinical relevance to serology results that can be equated to nAb activity and could serve as a valuable 'roadmap' to guide the choice and interpretation of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7302251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign in Turkey has started in mid-January for the healthcare workers (HCWs) with the inactive virus vaccine CoronaVac (Sinovac). After four and a half months, the Turkish Ministry of Health rolled out a booster-dose vaccination campaign for HCWs and all people over 50 years old beginning in July 2021. The individuals eligible were given the choice of either CoronaVac or mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 for the third booster-dose vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers against the S1 subunit of the spike protein as a marker of the humoral response in 179 HCWs who received a third booster dose of either CoronaVac or BNT162b2. A total of 136 HCWs, 71 female (52.2%) and 65 male (47.8%), completed both serum collections on Days 0 and 28. The median SARS-CoV-2 IgG S Protein (SP) titer in all participants before the vaccination was 175.7 AU/ml. Of 136 HCWs, 103 (75.73%) chose BNT162b2 vaccine and 33 (24.26%) chose CoronaVac as the third booster dose. There was a significant difference between the BNT162b2 group and the CoronaVac group in terms of SARS-CoV-2 IgG SP titers (p < 0.001). The median SARS-CoV-2 IgG SP titers in BNT162b2 group (n = 103) and in CoronaVac group (n = 33) were 17619.3 AU/ml and 1153.0 AU/ml, respectively. The third booster dose with BNT162b2 and CoronaVac increased antibody titers in each participant a mean of 162-fold and 9-fold, respectively. HCWs in the BNT162b2 group reported more frequent adverse events than HCWs in the CoronaVac group (p < 0.001).
| S-EPMC9088656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. We conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. Among specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. Our evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies.
| S-EPMC7273265 | biostudies-literature