Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests with late convalescent sera.

SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM antibodies wane during the first three months after infection and IgG antibody levels decline. This may limit the ability of antibody tests to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection at later time points. To examine if the diagnostic sensitivity of antibody tests falls off, we compared the sensitivity of two nucleoprotein-based antibody tests, the Roche Elecsis II Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and three glycoprotein-based tests, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Siemens Atellica IM COV2T and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 assay with 53 sera obtained 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of the Roche, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Siemens antibody assays was 94.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.3-98.8%), 98.1 % (95% CI: 89.9-100%) and 100 % (95% CI: 93.3-100%). The sensitivity of the N-based Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and the glycoprotein-based Euroimmun ELISA was 45.3 % (95% CI: 31.6-59.6%) and 83.3% (95% CI: 70.2-91.9%). The nucleoprotein-based Roche and the glycoprotein-based Abbott receptor binding domain (RBD) and Siemens tests were more sensitive than the N-based Abbott and the Euroimmun antibody tests (p = 0.0001 to p = 0.039). The N-based Abbott antibody test was less sensitive 6 months than 4-10 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.0001). The findings show that most SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays correctly identified previous infection 6 months after infection. The sensitivity of pan-Ig antibody tests was not reduced at 6 months when IgM antibodies have usually disappeared. However, one of the nucleoprotein-based antibody tests significantly lost diagnostic sensitivity over time.

ELISA IgG versus CMIA IgG for detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patients

COVID-19 is an important coronavirus infection. The detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies is important in laboratory medicine. Several serological tests are available. Some serological tests such as ELISA IgG versus CMIA IgG are used as standard references for rapid diagnostic immunoassay. Here, the authors reappraised on the diagnostic property of ELISA IgG versus CMIA IgG for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patients. According to the analysis, CMIA IgG has a higher sensitivity and ELISA IgG has a higher specificity. Therefore, CMIA IgG is more appropriate for screening purpose. © Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth 2022.

Long-Term Longitudinal Evaluation of Six Commercial Immunoassays for the Detection of IgM and IgG Antibodies against SARS CoV-2.

The number of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 has skyrocketed in the past year. Concerns have been raised regarding their performance characteristics, depending on the disease severity and the time of the analysis post-symptom onset (PSO). Thus, independent validations using an unbiased sample selection are required for meaningful serology data interpretation. We aimed to assess the clinical performance of six commercially available assays, the seroconversion, and the dynamics of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study included 528 serum samples from 156 patients with follow-up visits up to six months PSO and 161 serum samples from healthy people. The IgG/total antibodies positive percentage increased and remained above 95% after six months when chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) IgG antiS1/S2 and electro-chemiluminescent assay (ECLIA) total antiNP were used. At early time points PSO, chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) IgM antiS achieved the best sensitivity. IgM and IgG appear simultaneously in most circumstances, and when performed in parallel the sensitivity increases. The severe and the moderate clinical forms were significantly associated with higher seropositivity percentage and antibody levels. High specificity was found in all evaluated assays, but the sensitivity was variable depending on the time PSO, severity of disease, detection method and targeted antigen.

Assessment of automated high-throughput serological assays for prediction of high-titer SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody.

COVID19 convalescent patient plasma units with high titer neutralizing antibody can be used to treat patients with severe disease. Therefore, in order to select suitable donors, neutralizing antibody titer against SARS CoV-2 needs to be determined. Because the neutralization assay is highly demanding from several points of view, a pre-selection of sera would be desirable to minimize the number of sera to be tested. In this study, a total of 140 serum samples that had been titrated for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody by microneutralization assay were also tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody using 5 different tests: Architect® immunoassay (Abbott Diagnostics), detecting IgG against the nucleocapsid protein, LIAISON XL® (Diasorin) detecting IgG against a recombinant form of the S1/S2 subunits of the spike protein, VITROS® (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics), detecting IgG against a recombinant form of the spike protein, and ELISA (Euroimmun AG), detecting IgA or IgG against a recombinant form of the S1 subunit. To determine which immunoassay had the highest chance to detect sera with neutralizing antibodies above a certain threshold, we compared the results obtained from the five immunoassays with the titers obtained by microneutralization assay by linear regression analysis and by using receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden's index. Our results indicate that the most suitable method to predict sera with high Nab titer is Euroimmun® IgG, followed closely by Ortho VITROS® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG.

The real life performance of 7 automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM/IgA immunoassays.

OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed at providing some insights into the real-life performance of the commercial, clinically validated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: The residual, anonymized samples from 97 patients referred for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing were included in the study. The initial assessment was performed with the Euroimmun ELISAs, followed by the assays provided by: NovaTec, Snibe, Vircell, Roche, Abbott and DiaSorin. The analyses of the results were performed separately for the antibodies of the early (IgM/IgA) and late (IgG) immune response. RESULTS: We observed a high variability of the results obtained with the investigated immunoassays. The fully concordant results were reported for only 57 out of 97 samples tested for IgG antibodies and for 34 out of 97 samples for IgM/IgA. The highest percentage of positive results was noted for the Euroimmun and Vircell ELISAs and the lowest for Novatec ELISAs.We proposed to distinguish true and false positive results based on the sum of positive results obtained with different methods. We arbitrarily considered reference positive samples reactive in at least half of the assays. The assay that proved to correlate the best with those reference results was the Roche electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. CONCLUSIONS: The differences observed between immunoassays targeting the early phase antibodies were much more pronounced than between IgG assays, suggesting their lower value for clinical use. Our study also showed a high percentage of plausibly false (positive or negative) results obtained with ELISAs, which suggests their inferiority to the automated immunoassays.

Independent Side-by-Side Validation and Comparison of 4 Serological Platforms for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing.

Highly sensitive and specific platforms for the detection of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are becoming increasingly important for evaluating potential SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma donors, studying the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections, and identifying individuals with seroconversion. This study provides a comparative validation of 4 anti-SARS-CoV-2 platforms. A unique feature of the study is the use of a representative cohort of convalescent patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and a mild to moderate disease course. All platforms showed significant correlations with a SARS-CoV-2 plaque reduction neutralization test, with highest sensitivities for the Euroimmun and the Roche platforms, suggesting their preferential use for screening persons at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Longitudinal analysis of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 8000 U.S. first-time convalescent plasma donations.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent individuals carry antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that, through a plasma donation, can be used as a potential therapeutic either in direct transfusion or for the manufacture of hyperimmune globulin (HIG). The success of such interventions depends on the antibody potency in such plasma donations, but little information on the collection of potent units is currently available. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 8749 plasma units, collected from April until September 2020 from first-time U.S. COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors, were characterized for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies by Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA). The period between COVID-19 onset until donation and donor age, ethnicity, sex, and COVID-19 severity were evaluated against the obtained signal (index S/C). RESULTS: A marked decrease in mean index S/C was seen over the plasma collection period surveyed, which was significantly correlated to decreases in mean plasma donor age (p < .0001; R2 = .726) and percentage of donations obtained from COVID-19 convalescent patients who had been hospitalized (p = .001; R2 = .4426). The highest titer plasma units were obtained soon after convalescence from COVID-19 patients who required hospitalization, from advanced age donors, and from Black/African/Hispanic American versus White/Caucasian ethnicities, whereas there was no effect of donor sex on the values obtained with the Abbott CMIA. CONCLUSION: Since the onset of the pandemic, the average SARS-CoV-2 IgG values of first-time U.S. COVID-19 convalescent plasma donations have significantly dropped, mainly due to donations from progressively younger aged donors who tend to experience less severe COVID-19.