Performance of the Roche/Snibe electrochemiluminescent anti-SARS-COV-2 spike assays compared to the Roche/Abbott IgG nucleocapsid and Abbott IgM spike assays.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
We evaluated the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and Snibe SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG spike chemiluminescent immunoassays and compared them to existing Roche/Abbott nucleocapsid and Abbott IgM spike assays.Methods
We enrolled 184 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive samples and 215 controls (172 pre-pandemic, and 43 cross-reactivity) to evaluate the Roche spike antibody (anti-SARS-CoV-2-S) assay. For the Snibe evaluation, we included 119 RT-PCR positive samples and 249 controls (200 pre-pandemice, 49 cross-reactivity). 98 cases had been tested on three spike assays (Roche total antibody, Snibe IgG and Abbott IgM).Results
The Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2-S assay had a CV of 0.5% (0.82U/mL) and 2.3% (8.72U/mL) and was linear from 1.16 to 240U/mL. The Snibe assay was linear from 6.43 to 77.7AU/mL, CV of 5.5% (0.43AU/mL) and 8.8% (0.18AU/mL). The Snibe spike assay was significantly more sensitive than the Abbott IgG assay at 0-6 days POS (35.2% vs 3.6%, mean difference 29.6%, 95% CI 17.5 to 41.8, p < 0.0001). Optimized LORs significantly improved the sensitivity of the Roche spike (48.1%-56.7%) and both nucleocapsid assays (Roche 43.3%-65.5%, Abbott 3.6%-18.5%) in early disease.Conclusion
Although both spike assays showed higher sensitivity than their nucleocapsid counterparts, lower, optimized LORs provided the most significant improvements to sensitivity.
SUBMITTER: Lau CS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8513513 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Critical evaluation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays is needed to guide clinical decision-making and ensure that these assays provide optimal benefit to patients and the public. Here, three commercially available assays with widespread distribution capabilities are compared. A total of 667 specimens, 103 from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 564 collected prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, were analyzed in parallel using the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 total antibody and Abbott Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays; a subset of 55 samples from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections was additionally evaluated using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay. Qualitative agreement between the Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody assays was 98.7% (658/667), with Cohen's kappa value of 0.919 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.867 to 0.972). Qualitative agreements with the Abbott IgM assay were 92.7% (51/55, Abbott IgG) and 85.5% (47/55, Roche total antibody). Diagnostic specificities determined using pre-COVID-19 samples for the Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody assays were 99.65% (95% CI, 98.72 to 99.90%) and 100.00% (95% CI, 99.32 to 100.00%), respectively, spanning claims made by each manufacturer. Diagnostic sensitivities increased for all three assays with increasing time since the onset of symptoms. Among 51 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, 23 (45.1%), 24 (47.1%), and 22 (43.1%) were reactive by the Abbott IgG, Roche total antibody, and Abbott IgM assays, respectively, with sampling times 0 to 56 days post-positive PCR (median/mean, 2/6.2 days). Combining IgG and IgM screening identified 4/55 additional samples with detectable antibodies that would not have been observed using the assays independently. Notably, one immunocompromised patient with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection showed no detectable antibodies using any of the three assays 43 days after onset of symptoms.
| S-EPMC7771433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid and simple serological assays for characterizing antibody responses are important in the current COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Multiplex immunoblot (IB) assays termed COVID-19 IB assays were developed for detecting IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins in COVID-19 patients.MethodsRecombinant nucleocapsid protein and the S1, S2 and receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were used as target antigens in the COVID-19 IBs. Specificity of the IB assay was established with 231 sera from persons with allergy, unrelated viral infections, autoimmune conditions and suspected tick-borne diseases, and 32 goat antisera to human influenza proteins. IgG and IgM COVID-19 IBs assays were performed on 84 sera obtained at different times after a positive RT-qPCR test from 37 COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms.ResultsCriteria for determining overall IgG and IgM antibody positivity using the four SARS-CoV-2 proteins were developed by optimizing specificity and sensitivity in the COVID-19 IgG and IgM IB assays. The estimated sensitivities and specificities of the COVID-19 IgG and IgM IBs for IgG and IgM antibodies individually or for either IgG or IgM antibodies meet the US recommendations for laboratory serological diagnostic tests. The proportion of IgM-positive sera from the COVID-19 patients following an RT-qPCR positive test was maximal at 83% before 10 days and decreased to 0% after 100 days, while the proportions of IgG-positive sera tended to plateau between days 11 and 65 at 78-100% and fall to 44% after 100 days. Detection of either IgG or IgM antibodies was better than IgG or IgM alone for assessing seroconversion in COVID-19. Both IgG and IgM antibodies detected RBD less frequently than S1, S2 and N proteins.ConclusionsThe multiplex COVID-19 IB assays offer many advantages for simultaneously evaluating antibody responses to different SARS-CoV-2 proteins in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8025059 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWe evaluated the performance of the new Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay on the Architect immunoassay analyser and compared it to the Architect IgG/Roche Cobas total antibody assays in both SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive cases and healthy controls.Method200 healthy control samples and 48 individuals with other antibody-positive disorders (18 hepatitis/18 dengue/11 ANA/1 dsDNA) served to assess for potential cross-reactivity. Anonymised residual leftover sera positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR were recruited as cases (N = 133). The sensitivity/specificity/cross-reactivity of the Architect IgM assay were assessed. Concordance between the 3 assays were also analysed.ResultsThere was no cross-reactivity with controls and other antibody positive samples. The Architect IgM assay was 100% specific (95% CI 98.5 to 100) and sensitivity was 77.8% (95% CI 60.8 to 89.9) ≥14 days post-first positive RT-PCR (POS). Sensitivity of the combined Architect IgM and IgG results (30.8%) was significantly better than the Cobas total antibodies (15.4%) in early disease (p = 0.04). While the Architect IgM assay had moderate agreement with the Cobas total antibody result (Cohen's kappa 0.72), a combined Architect IgM and IgG result had better agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.83).ConclusionThe Architect IgM assay has good specificity and no cross-reactivity with other antibody positive cases. A combined Architect IgM and IgG result has better sensitivity than the individual assays for early COVID-19. The Architect IgM assay is not comparable to the Cobas total antibody assay, but the Architect IgM and IgG combined result has good agreement with the Cobas assay.
| S-EPMC8079267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serologic assays developed for SARS-CoV-2 detect different antibody subtypes and are based on different target antigens. Comparison of the performance of a SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Protein ELISA and the nucleocapsid-based Abbott ArchitectTM SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay indicated that the assays had high concordance, with rare paired discordant tests results.
| S-EPMC8320896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical laboratory testing has been an essential part of COVID-19 management. Serology can provide valuable information regarding a patient's exposure to virus, and may have a larger role to play as vaccines becomes available. Limited data is available on the serological response in pediatric patients. Here we investigate the use of one manufacturer's commercial assays for detecting IgM and IgG in an exclusively pediatric population.MethodsAbbott SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG assays were performed on an Abbott ARCHITECT i1000. For specificity studies, we tested 78 patient specimens collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 66 specimens from patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) during the COVID-19 pandemic. For sensitivity we tested 181 specimens from 41 patients with a positive NAAT result. Precision data was acquired for 20 days.ResultsFor IgM, the highest qualitative positive agreement with molecular results was observed to be 15-30 days after a positive NAAT result or after symptom onset. For IgG, the highest positive agreement was 31-60 days after a positive NAAT result or 61-90 days after the start of symptoms. IgM started to decline 30 days after NAAT results and faded by 90 days. IgG started to decrease 60 days after a positive NAAT result.ConclusionThe Abbott IgM and IgG assays have negative agreements of 98.7-100% relative to NAAT results. The IgM and IgG levels assayed by these methods start to decline months after positive molecular results and onset of symptoms in a pediatric population.
| S-EPMC7893289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance along with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the probable causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were evaluated using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of false positive results from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, assays lacked reproducibility. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with the same antigen that was used for coating ELISAs prior to performing the assay), suggesting positive reaction could be attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by the spiking, suggesting positive reaction was not attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the corresponding antigen, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.
| S-EPMC7605638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 antibody testing has been developed to investigate humoral immune response in SARS-CoV-2 infection. To assess the serological dynamics and neutralizing potency following SARS-CoV-2 infection, we investigated the neutralizing (NT) antibody, anti-spike, and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies responses using a total of 168 samples obtained from 68 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Antibodies were measured using an authentic virus neutralization assay, the high-throughput laboratory measurements of the Abbott Alinity quantitative anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (S-IgG), semiquantitative anti-spike IgM (S-IgM), and anti-nucleocapsid IgG (N-IgG) assays. The quantitative measurement of S-IgG antibodies was well correlated with the neutralizing activity detected by the neutralization assay (r = 0.8943, p < 0.0001). However, the kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 NT antibody in severe cases were slower than that of anti-S and anti-N specific antibodies. These findings indicate a limitation of using the S-IgG antibody titer, detected by the chemiluminescent immunoassay, as a direct quantitative marker of neutralizing activity capacity. Antibody testing should be carefully interpreted when utilized as a marker for serological responses to facilitate diagnostic, therapeutic, and prophylactic interventions.
| S-EPMC9436163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread worldwide. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies plays an important role in understanding and controlling the pandemic, notably through epidemiological surveillance. Well-validated and highly specific SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are urgently needed. We describe here the analytical and clinical performance of Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM and Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgG, two CE-marked, emergency use authorization (EUA)-authorized, automated, qualitative assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG, respectively. Both assays showed high within-run and within-laboratory precision (coefficients of variation < 11.0%) and very low cross-reactivity toward sera of patients with a past common coronavirus or respiratory virus infection. Clinical specificity determined on up to 989 prepandemic healthy donors was ≥99% with a narrow 95% confidence interval for both IgM and IgG assays. Clinical sensitivity was determined on up to 232 samples from 130 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients. The positive percent agreement (PPA) with SARS-CoV-2 PCR reached 100% at ≥16 days (Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM) and ≥32 days (Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgG) of symptom onset. Combined IgM/IgG test results improved the PPA compared to each test alone. SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroconversion followed closely that of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and remained stable over time, while SARS-CoV-2 IgM levels rapidly declined. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG responses were significantly higher in COVID-19 hospitalized versus nonhospitalized patients. Altogether, the Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG assays are highly specific and sensitive serological tests suitable for the reliable detection of past acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.
| S-EPMC8092742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this paper, we have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance in comparison with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were compared using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of positive signals from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, positivity varied with assay repetition. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with analyte prior to performing the assay). In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by analyte spiking. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the analyte, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.
| S-EPMC7418763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Determination of anti-hepatitis E virus (anti-HEV) antibodies is still enigmatic. There is no gold standard, and results obtained with different assays often diverge. Herein, five assays were compared for detection of anti-HEV IgM and IgG. Serum samples from 500 Swedish blood donors and 316 patients, of whom 136 had suspected HEV infection, were analyzed. Concordant results for IgM and IgG with all assays were obtained only for 71% and 70% of patients with suspected hepatitis E, respectively. The range of sensitivity for anti-HEV detection was broad (42% to 96%); this was reflected in the detection limit, which varied up to 19-fold for IgM and 17-fold for IgG between assays. HEV RNA was analyzed in all patients and in those blood donors reactive for anti-HEV in any assay, and it was found in 26 individuals. Among all of the assays, both anti-HEV IgG and IgM were detected in 10 of those individuals. Twelve had only IgG and, in 7 of those 12, IgG was only detected with the two most sensitive assays. Three of the HEV-RNA-positive samples were negative for anti-HEV IgM and IgG in all assays. With the two most sensitive assays, anti-HEV IgG was identified in 16% of the blood donor samples and in 66% of patients with suspected HEV infection. Because several HEV-RNA-positive samples had only anti-HEV IgG without anti-HEV IgM or lacked anti-HEV antibodies, analysis for HEV RNA may be warranted as a complement in the laboratory diagnosis of ongoing HEV infection.
| S-EPMC4767966 | biostudies-literature