Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
3.
HLA ; 100(1): 52-58, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1816658

ABSTRACT

The effects of COVID-19 vaccination on alloimmunization and clinical impact in transplant candidates remain largely unknown. In a 61-year-old man who had no donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and was planned to undergo ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation (ABOi KT), DSAs (anti-A24, anti-B51, and anti-Cw14) developed after COVID-19 vaccination. After desensitization therapy, antibody level was further increased, leading to flow cytometric crossmatch-positive status. Donor-specific T cell immunity using interferon-gamma ELISPOT was continuously negative, whereas SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell immunity was intact. After confirming the C1q-negative status of DSA, the patient received ABOi KT. The patient had stable graft function and suppressed alloimmunity up to 2 months after KT. COVID-19 vaccination might relate to alloimmunization in transplant candidates, and desensitization through immune monitoring can help guide transplantation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Transplantation , Alleles , Antibodies , COVID-19 Vaccines , Flow Cytometry , Graft Rejection , Graft Survival , HLA Antigens , Humans , Living Donors , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
4.
Annals of Laboratory Medicine ; 41(6):577-587, 2021.
Article in English | CAB Abstracts | ID: covidwho-1408357

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays.

5.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(8)2021 Aug 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367801

ABSTRACT

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays against the spike (S) protein are useful for monitoring immune response after infection or vaccination. We compared the results of three chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott, Roche, Siemens) and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT, GenScript) using 191 sequential samples from 32 COVID-19 patients. All assays detected >90% of samples collected 14 days after symptom onset (Abbott 97.4%, Roche 96.2%, Siemens 92.3%, and GenScript 96.2%), and overall agreement among the four assays was 91.1% to 96.3%. When we assessed time-course antibody levels, the Abbott and Siemens assays showed higher levels in patients with severe disease (p < 0.05). Antibody levels from the three CLIAs were correlated (r = 0.763-0.885). However, Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed significant proportional differences between assays and converting results to binding antibody units (BAU)/mL still showed substantial bias. CLIAs had good performance in predicting sVNT positivity (Area Under the Curve (AUC), 0.959-0.987), with Abbott having the highest AUC value (p < 0.05). SARS-CoV-2 S protein antibody levels as assessed by the CLIAs were not interchangeable, but showed reliable performance for predicting sVNT results. Further standardization and harmonization of immunoassays might be helpful in monitoring immune status after COVID-19 infection or vaccination.

6.
Ann Lab Med ; 41(6): 577-587, 2021 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1264321

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays. METHODS: We evaluated 12 commercial immunoassays, including three automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (Abbott, Roche, and Siemens), three enzyme immunoassays (Bio-Rad, Euroimmun, and Vircell), five lateral flow immunoassays (Boditech Med, SD biosensor, PCL, Sugentech, and Rapigen), and one surrogate neutralizing antibody assay (GenScript) in sequential samples from 49 COVID-19 patients and 10 seroconversion panels. RESULTS: The positive percent agreement (PPA) of assays for a COVID-19 diagnosis ranged from 84.0% to 98.5% for all samples (>14 days after symptom onset), with IgM or IgA assays showing higher PPAs. Seroconversion responses varied across the assay type and disease severity. Assays targeting the spike or receptor-binding domain protein showed a tendency for early seroconversion detection and higher index values in patients with severe disease. Index values from SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody assays (three automated assays, one LFIA, and three EIAs) showed moderate to strong correlations with the neutralizing antibody percentage (r=0.517-0.874), and stronger correlations in patients with severe disease and in assays targeting spike protein. Agreement among the 12 assays was good (74.3%-96.4%) for detecting IgG or total antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Positivity rates and seroconversion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies vary depending on the assay kits, disease severity, and antigen target. This study contributes to a better understanding of antibody response in symptomatic COVID-19 patients using currently available assays.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Immunoassay , Immunoglobulin A/analysis , Immunoglobulin G/analysis , Immunoglobulin M/analysis , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sensitivity and Specificity , Severity of Illness Index
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL