Literature DB >> 33399823

Evaluation of High-Throughput SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays in a Longitudinal Cohort of Patients with Mild COVID-19: Clinical Sensitivity, Specificity, and Association with Virus Neutralization Test.

Antonin Bal1,2, Bruno Pozzetto3,4, Mary-Anne Trabaud1, Vanessa Escuret1,2, Muriel Rabilloud5,6, Carole Langlois-Jacques5,6, Adèle Paul7,8, Nicolas Guibert7,8, Constance D'Aubarède-Frieh7,8, Amélie Massardier-Pilonchery7,8, Nicole Fabien9, David Goncalves9, André Boibieux10, Florence Morfin-Sherpa1,2, Virginie Pitiot8, François Gueyffier6,11, Bruno Lina1,2, Jean-Baptiste Fassier7,8, Sophie Trouillet-Assant2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The association between SARS-CoV-2 commercial serological assays and virus neutralization test (VNT) has been poorly explored in mild patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: 439 serum specimens were longitudinally collected from 76 healthcare workers with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19. The clinical sensitivity (determined weekly) of 9 commercial serological assays were evaluated. Clinical specificity was assessed using 69 pre-pandemic sera. Correlation, agreement, and concordance with the VNT were also assessed on a subset of 170 samples. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated at 2 neutralizing antibody titers.
RESULTS: The Wantai Total Ab assay targeting the receptor binding domain (RBD) within the S protein presented the best sensitivity at different times during the course of disease. The clinical specificity was greater than 95% for all tests except for the Euroimmun IgA assay. The overall agreement with the presence of neutralizing antibodies ranged from 62.2% (95%CI; 56.0-68.1) for bioMérieux IgM to 91.2% (87.0-94.2) for Siemens. The lowest negative percent agreement (NPA) was found with the Wantai Total Ab assay (NPA 33% (21.1-48.3)). The NPA for other total Ab or IgG assays targeting the S or the RBD was 80.7% (66.7-89.7), 90.3% (78.1-96.1), and 96.8% (86.8-99.3) for Siemens, bioMérieux IgG, and DiaSorin, respectively. None of the commercial assays have sufficient performance to detect a neutralizing titer of 80 (AUC < 0.76).
CONCLUSIONS: Although some assays show a better agreement with VNT than others, the present findings emphasize that commercialized serological tests, including those targeting the RBD, cannot substitute a VNT for the assessment of functional antibody response. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; health-care workers; serological assays; virus neutralization

Year:  2021        PMID: 33399823      PMCID: PMC7929008          DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/hvaa336

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  25 in total

Review 1.  Point-of-care diagnostics: recent developments in a pandemic age.

Authors:  Harshit Harpaldas; Siddarth Arumugam; Chelsey Campillo Rodriguez; Bhoomika Ajay Kumar; Vivian Shi; Samuel K Sia
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 6.799

2.  Head-to-Head Comparison of 5 Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Assays Performance in One Hundred COVID-19 Vaccinees, over an 8-Month Course.

Authors:  Jakub Swadźba; Tomasz Anyszek; Andrzej Panek; Agnieszka Chojęta; Kinga Wyrzykowska; Emilia Martin
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-09

3.  Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among Medical Students in Copenhagen.

Authors:  Johannes R Madsen; Jacob P S Nielsen; Kamille Fogh; Cecilie B Hansen; Pernille B Nielsen; Theis Lange; Rasmus B Hasselbalch; Peter Garred; Kasper Iversen
Journal:  Open Forum Infect Dis       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 3.835

Review 4.  Convalescent Plasma for the Treatment of Severe COVID-19.

Authors:  Massimo Franchini; Giancarlo Maria Liumbruno
Journal:  Biologics       Date:  2021-02-04

5.  Assessment of serological assays for identifying high titer convalescent plasma.

Authors:  Christopher W Farnsworth; James Brett Case; Karl Hock; Rita E Chen; Jane A O'Halloran; Rachel Presti; Charles W Goss; Adriana M Rauseo; Ali Ellebedy; Elitza S Theel; Michael S Diamond; Jeffrey P Henderson
Journal:  medRxiv       Date:  2021-03-28

6.  Associating SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays with Protection: Where the Field Stands.

Authors:  Mei San Tang; Christopher W Farnsworth
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 8.327

7.  Performance Characteristics of the Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG Serological Assays.

Authors:  Nathalie Renard; Soizic Daniel; Nadège Cayet; Matthieu Pecquet; Frédérique Raymond; Sylvie Pons; Julien Lupo; Carole Tourneur; Catherine Pretis; Guillaume Gerez; Patrick Blasco; Maxime Combe; Imen Canova; Mylène Lesénéchal; Franck Berthier
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 8.  The Three Pillars of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Therapy.

Authors:  Massimo Franchini; Giancarlo Maria Liumbruno; Giorgio Piacentini; Claudia Glingani; Marco Zaffanello
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-18

Review 9.  SARS-CoV-2 Tests: Bridging the Gap between Laboratory Sensors and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Nikita Toropov; Eleanor Osborne; Lovleen Tina Joshi; James Davidson; Caitlin Morgan; Joseph Page; Justin Pepperell; Frank Vollmer
Journal:  ACS Sens       Date:  2021-08-14       Impact factor: 7.711

10.  Evaluation of Commercial Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays and Comparison of Standardized Titers in Vaccinated Health Care Workers.

Authors:  Kahina Saker; Vanessa Escuret; Virginie Pitiot; Amélie Massardier-Pilonchéry; Stéphane Paul; Bouchra Mokdad; Carole Langlois-Jacques; Muriel Rabilloud; David Goncalves; Nicole Fabien; Nicolas Guibert; Jean-Baptiste Fassier; Antonin Bal; Sophie Trouillet-Assant; Mary-Anne Trabaud
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.