Author: Wang, Hannah; Wiredja, Danica; Yang, Lu; Bulterys, Philip L; Costales, Cristina; Röltgen, Katharina; Manalac, Justin; Yee, Jennifer; Zehnder, James; Shi, Run Zhang; Boyd, Scott D; Pinsky, Benjamin A
Title: Case-Control Study of Individuals with Discrepant Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein SARS-CoV-2 IgG Results Cord-id: 6zge86ow Document date: 2021_3_15
ID: 6zge86ow
Snippet: BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection vary widely in performance. However, there are limited prospectively-collected data on assay performance, and minimal clinical information to guide interpretation of discrepant results. METHODS: Over a two-week period, 1080 consecutive plasma samples submitted for clinical SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing were tested in parallel for anti-nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N, Abbott) and anti-spike IgG (anti-S1, EUROIMMUN). Chart review was conduct
Document: BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection vary widely in performance. However, there are limited prospectively-collected data on assay performance, and minimal clinical information to guide interpretation of discrepant results. METHODS: Over a two-week period, 1080 consecutive plasma samples submitted for clinical SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing were tested in parallel for anti-nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N, Abbott) and anti-spike IgG (anti-S1, EUROIMMUN). Chart review was conducted for samples testing positive or borderline on either assay, and for an age/sex-matched cohort of samples negative by both assays. CDC surveillance case definitions were used to determine clinical sensitivity/specificity and conduct receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. RESULTS: There were 52 samples positive by both methods, 2 positive for anti-N only, 34 positive for anti-S1 only, and 27 borderline for anti-S1. Of the 34 individuals positive for anti-S1 alone, 8 (24%) had confirmed COVID-19. No anti-S1 borderline cases were positive for anti-N or had confirmed/probable COVID-19. The anti-N assay was less sensitive (84.2% [95% CI 72.1-92.5%] versus 94.7% [95% CI 85.4-98.9%]) but more specific (99.2% [95% CI 95.5-100%] versus 86.9% [95% CI 79.6-92.3%]) than anti-S1. Abbott anti-N sensitivity could be improved to 96.5% with minimal effect on specificity if the index threshold was lowered from 1.4 to 0.6. CONCLUSION: Real-world concordance between different serologic assays may be lower than previously described in retrospective studies. These findings have implications for the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG results, especially with the advent of spike antigen-targeted vaccination, as a subset of patients with true infection are anti-N negative and anti-S1 positive.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- abbott architect and acid amplification test: 1, 2
- abbott architect and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
- abbott sars and academic hospital: 1
- abbott sars and acid amplification test: 1, 2, 3
- abbott sars and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- abbott sars euroimmun and academic hospital: 1
- abbott sars euroimmun and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- academic hospital and active investigation: 1
- academic hospital and acute pneumonia: 1, 2, 3, 4
- academic hospital and acute pneumonia respiratory distress: 1, 2
- academic hospital and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- acid amplification test and acute pneumonia: 1
- acid amplification test and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
- active investigation and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
- active investigation area and acute respiratory syndrome: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- acute respiratory syndrome and adjunctive diagnostic tool: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date