Joe M El-Khoury 1 , Wade L Schulz 1 , Thomas J S Durant 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays are becoming increasingly available and may serve as a diagnostic aid in a multitude of settings relating to past infection status. However, there is limited literature detailing the longitudinal performance of EUA-cleared serologic assays in US populations, particularly in cohorts with a remote history of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (e.g., >2 months). METHODS: We evaluated the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (anti-N) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (anti-S1-RBD) assays, using 174 residual clinical samples up to 267 days post-PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 154) and a subset of samples obtained prior to the COVID-19 pandemic as negative controls (n = 20). RESULTS: The calculated diagnostic sensitivities for the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays were 89% and 93%, respectively. Of the 154 samples in the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort, there were 6 discrepant results between the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays, 5 of which were specimens collected ≥200 days post-PCR positivity and only had detectable levels of anti-S1-RBD antibodies. When only considering specimens collected ≥100 days post-PCR positivity (n = 41), the sensitivities for the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays were 85% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The anti-S1-RBD assay demonstrated superior sensitivity at time points more remote to the PCR detection date, with 6 more specimens from the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort detected, 5 of which were collected more than 200 days post-PCR positivity. While analytical differences and reagent lot-to-lot variability are possible, this may indicate that, in some instances, anti-S1-RBD antibodies may persist longer in vivo and may be a better target for detecting remote SARS-CoV-2 infection. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays are becoming increasingly available and may serve as a diagnostic aid in a multitude of settings relating to past infection status. However, there is limited literature detailing the longitudinal performance of EUA-cleared serologic assays in US populations, particularly in cohorts with a remote history of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (e.g., >2 months). METHODS: We evaluated the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (anti-N) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (anti-S1-RBD) assays, using 174 residual clinical samples up to 267 days post-PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 154) and a subset of samples obtained prior to the COVID-19 pandemic as negative controls (n = 20). RESULTS: The calculated diagnostic sensitivities for the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays were 89% and 93%, respectively. Of the 154 samples in the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort, there were 6 discrepant results between the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays, 5 of which were specimens collected ≥200 days post-PCR positivity and only had detectable levels of anti-S1-RBD antibodies. When only considering specimens collected ≥100 days post-PCR positivity (n = 41), the sensitivities for the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays were 85% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The anti-S1-RBD assay demonstrated superior sensitivity at time points more remote to the PCR detection date, with 6 more specimens from the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort detected, 5 of which were collected more than 200 days post-PCR positivity. While analytical differences and reagent lot-to-lot variability are possible, this may indicate that, in some instances, anti-S1-RBD antibodies may persist longer in vivo and may be a better target for detecting remote SARS-CoV-2 infection. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; antibody; nucleocapsid; sensitivity; spike
Mesh： See more »
Substances： See more »
Year: 2021
PMID： 33822964 PMCID： PMC8083453 DOI： 10.1093/jalm/jfab030
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Lab Med ISSN： 2475-7241