Lenin Mahimainathan1, Madhusudhanan Narasimhan1, Rolando Corchado2, Hetalkumari Patel3, Ankit Kansagra4, Sridevi Devaraj5, Praveen Ramakrishnan Geethakumari6, Alagarraju Muthukumar1. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA. 2. William P. Clements Jr. University Hospital (CUH), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75235, USA. 3. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA. 5. Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 6. Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Stem Cell Transplantation, Harold. C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with hematological malignancies (HM), including multiple myeloma (MM), frequently suffer from immune deficiency-associated infectious complications because of both the disease and the treatment. Alarming results from China and the UK confirm the vulnerability of HM patients to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-driven coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given that the immunoassay interference from the endogenous monoclonal immunoglobulin (M paraprotein) and treatment antibodies continually challenges the MM management, it is critical to evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 serology tests for suspected interference/cross-reactivity. METHODS: We compared the degree of interference in three SARS-CoV-2 serology assay platforms in HM patients with and without COVID-19 and on various therapeutic monoclonal antibody (t-mAb) treatments. Further, we confirmed the cross-reactivity in pooled samples from normal and COVID-19 + samples spiked with respective antibodies in vitro. RESULTS: None of the 93 HM patient samples with or without t-MAbs showed cross-reactivity on any of the three serology platforms tested. CONCLUSIONS: The tested three serologic assays for SARS-CoV-2 are specific and do not have cross-reactivity with M-components or t-MAbs indicating that they can be used safely in oncology practice and in research exploring the immunologic response to COVID-19 in patients with HM.
BACKGROUND:Patients with hematological malignancies (HM), including multiple myeloma (MM), frequently suffer from immune deficiency-associated infectious complications because of both the disease and the treatment. Alarming results from China and the UK confirm the vulnerability of HM patients to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-driven coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Given that the immunoassay interference from the endogenous monoclonal immunoglobulin (M paraprotein) and treatment antibodies continually challenges the MM management, it is critical to evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 serology tests for suspected interference/cross-reactivity. METHODS: We compared the degree of interference in three SARS-CoV-2 serology assay platforms in HM patients with and without COVID-19 and on various therapeutic monoclonal antibody (t-mAb) treatments. Further, we confirmed the cross-reactivity in pooled samples from normal and COVID-19 + samples spiked with respective antibodies in vitro. RESULTS: None of the 93 HM patient samples with or without t-MAbs showed cross-reactivity on any of the three serology platforms tested. CONCLUSIONS: The tested three serologic assays for SARS-CoV-2 are specific and do not have cross-reactivity with M-components or t-MAbs indicating that they can be used safely in oncology practice and in research exploring the immunologic response to COVID-19 in patients with HM.
Authors: Maria Alice V Willrich; Paula M Ladwig; Bruna D Andreguetto; David R Barnidge; David L Murray; Jerry A Katzmann; Melissa R Snyder Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Lennard Yw Lee; Jean-Baptiste Cazier; Vasileios Angelis; Roland Arnold; Vartika Bisht; Naomi A Campton; Julia Chackathayil; Vinton Wt Cheng; Helen M Curley; Matthew W Fittall; Luke Freeman-Mills; Spyridon Gennatas; Anshita Goel; Simon Hartley; Daniel J Hughes; David Kerr; Alvin Jx Lee; Rebecca J Lee; Sophie E McGrath; Christopher P Middleton; Nirupa Murugaesu; Thomas Newsom-Davis; Alicia Fc Okines; Anna C Olsson-Brown; Claire Palles; Yi Pan; Ruth Pettengell; Thomas Powles; Emily A Protheroe; Karin Purshouse; Archana Sharma-Oates; Shivan Sivakumar; Ashley J Smith; Thomas Starkey; Chris D Turnbull; Csilla Várnai; Nadia Yousaf; Rachel Kerr; Gary Middleton Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Samuel McDonald; D Mark Courtney; Andrew E Clark; Alagarraju Muthukumar; Francesca Lee; Jyoti Balani; Lenin Mahimainathan; Anjali Bararia; Dwight Oliver; Ravi Sarode; Deborah Diercks Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 5.221
Authors: James A Aries; Jeffrey K Davies; Rebecca L Auer; Simon L Hallam; Silvia Montoto; Matthew Smith; Belen Sevillano; Vanessa Foggo; Bela Wrench; Krzysztof Zegocki; Samir Agrawal; Rifca Le Dieu; Edward Truelove; Thomas Erblich; Shamzah Araf; Jessica Okosun; Heather Oakervee; Jamie D Cavenagh; John G Gribben; John C Riches Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 8.615
Authors: Gordon Cook; A John Ashcroft; Guy Pratt; Rakesh Popat; Karthik Ramasamy; Martin Kaiser; Matthew Jenner; Sarah Henshaw; Rachel Hall; Jonathan Sive; Simon Stern; Matthew Streetly; Ceri Bygrave; Richard Soutar; Neil Rabin; Graham H Jackson Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 8.615
Authors: Wenjuan He; Lei Chen; Li Chen; Guolin Yuan; Yun Fang; Wenlan Chen; Di Wu; Bo Liang; Xiaoting Lu; Yanling Ma; Lei Li; Hongxiang Wang; Zhichao Chen; Qiubai Li; Robert Peter Gale Journal: Leukemia Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 12.883