Author: Nicholson, Suellen; Karapanagiotidis, Theo; Khvorov, Arseniy; Douros, Celia; Mordant, Francesca; Bond, Katherine; Druce, Julian; Williamson, Deborah A; Purcell, Damian; Lewin, Sharon R; Sullivan, Sheena; Subbarao, Kanta; Catton, Mike
Title: Evaluation of six commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays detecting different antibodies for clinical testing and serosurveillance Cord-id: ie875yi4 Document date: 2021_5_10
ID: ie875yi4
Snippet: BACKGROUND: Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 complements nucleic acid tests for patient diagnosis and enables monitoring of population susceptibility to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response. It is important to understand the reliability of assays with different antigen or antibody targets to detect humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to understand how antibody (Ab) binding assays compare to those detecting neutralizing antibody (nAb), particularly as we move into the era of vaccin
Document: BACKGROUND: Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 complements nucleic acid tests for patient diagnosis and enables monitoring of population susceptibility to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response. It is important to understand the reliability of assays with different antigen or antibody targets to detect humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to understand how antibody (Ab) binding assays compare to those detecting neutralizing antibody (nAb), particularly as we move into the era of vaccines. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of six commercially available Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs), including a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), for detection of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins (IgA, IgM, IgG), total or nAb. A result subset was compared to a cell culture-based microneutralisation (MN) assay. We tested sera from patients with prior RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, pre-pandemic sera and potential cross-reactive sera from patients with other non-COVID-19 acute infections. RESULTS: For sera collected > 14 days post-symptom onset, the assay achieving the highest sensitivity was the Wantai total Ab at 100% (95% confidence interval: 94.6-100) followed by 93.1% for Euroimmun NCP-IgG, 93.1% for GenScript sVNT, 90.3% for Euroimmun S1-IgG, 88.9% for Euroimmun S1-IgA and 83.3% for Wantai IgM. Specificity for the best performing assay was 99.5% for the Wantai total Ab and for the lowest performing assay was 97.1% for sVNT (as per IFU). The Wantai Total Ab had the best agreement with MN at 98% followed by Euroimmun S1-IgA, Euro NCP-IgG and sVNT (as per IFU) with (97%, 97% and 95% respectively) and Wantai IgM having the poorest agreement at 93%. CONCLUSION: Performance characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 serology assays detecting different antibody types are consistent with those found in previously published reports. Evaluation of the surrogate virus neutralization test in comparison to the Ab binding assays and a cell culture-based neutralization assay showed good result correlation between all assays. However correlation between the cell-based neutralization test and some assays detecting Ab’s not specifically involved in neutralization was higher than with the sVNT. This study demonstrates the reliability of different assays to detect the humoral immune response following SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be used to optimise serological test algorithms for assessing antibody responses post SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- ab antibody and acute respiratory: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
- ab binding assay and acute respiratory: 1
- abs detection and acute infection: 1
- abs detection and acute respiratory: 1, 2, 3
- acceptable range and acute respiratory: 1
- acute infection and adaptive immune system: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
- acute infection and adaptive immune system play: 1
- acute infection and adaptive immune system play role: 1
- acute infection and low prevalence: 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
- acute infection and low prevalence population: 1, 2, 3
- acute infection and low specificity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
- acute infection and low specificity high sensitivity: 1, 2, 3
- acute respiratory and adaptive immune system: 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
- acute respiratory and adaptive immune system play: 1
- acute respiratory and adaptive immune system play role: 1
- acute respiratory and low prevalence: 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
- acute respiratory and low prevalence population: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- acute respiratory and low specificity: 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
- acute respiratory and low specificity high sensitivity: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date