Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Comparative performance of multiplex salivary and commercially available serologic assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralization titers.
Heaney, Christopher D; Pisanic, Nora; Randad, Pranay R; Kruczynski, Kate; Howard, Tyrone; Zhu, Xianming; Littlefield, Kirsten; Patel, Eshan U; Shrestha, Ruchee; Laeyendecker, Oliver; Shoham, Shmuel; Sullivan, David; Gebo, Kelly; Hanley, Daniel; Redd, Andrew D; Quinn, Thomas C; Casadevall, Arturo; Zenilman, Jonathan M; Pekosz, Andrew; Bloch, Evan M; Tobian, Aaron A R.
  • Heaney CD; Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7033B Baltimore, MD, 21205 USA; Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of In
  • Pisanic N; Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7033B Baltimore, MD, 21205 USA.
  • Randad PR; Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7033B Baltimore, MD, 21205 USA.
  • Kruczynski K; Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7033B Baltimore, MD, 21205 USA.
  • Howard T; Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7033B Baltimore, MD, 21205 USA.
  • Zhu X; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Littlefield K; Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Patel EU; Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Shrestha R; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Laeyendecker O; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore MD, USA.
  • Shoham S; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Sullivan D; Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Gebo K; Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Hanley D; Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Redd AD; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore MD, USA.
  • Quinn TC; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore MD, USA.
  • Casadevall A; Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Zenilman JM; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Pekosz A; Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Room W7033B Baltimore, MD, 21205 USA; Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
  • Bloch EM; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Tobian AAR; Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Clin Virol ; 145: 104997, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1458634
Preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
ABSTRACT
Oral fluid (hereafter saliva) offers a non-invasive sampling method for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, data comparing performance of salivary tests against commercially-available serologic and neutralizing antibody (nAb) assays are lacking. This study compared the performance of a laboratory-developed multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay targeting antibodies to nucleocapsid (N), receptor binding domain (RBD) and spike (S) antigens to three commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 serologic enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (Ortho Vitros, Euroimmun, and BioRad) and nAb. Paired saliva and plasma samples were collected from 101 eligible COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors >14 days since PCR+ confirmed diagnosis. Concordance was evaluated using positive (PPA) and negative (NPA) percent agreement, and Cohen's kappa coefficient. The range between salivary and plasma EIAs for SARS-CoV-2-specific N was PPA 54.4-92.1% and NPA 69.2-91.7%, for RBD was PPA 89.9-100% and NPA 50.0-84.6%, and for S was PPA 50.6-96.6% and NPA 50.0-100%. Compared to a plasma nAb assay, the multiplex salivary assay PPA ranged from 62.3% (N) and 98.6% (RBD) and NPA ranged from 18.8% (RBD) to 96.9% (S). Combinations of N, RBD, and S and a summary algorithmic index of all three (N/RBD/S) in saliva produced ranges of PPA 87.6-98.9% and NPA 50-91.7% with the three EIAs and ranges of PPA 88.4-98.6% and NPA 21.9-34.4% with the nAb assay. A multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay demonstrated variable, but comparable performance to three commercially-available plasma EIAs and a nAb assay, and may be a viable alternative to assist in monitoring population-based seroprevalence and vaccine antibody response.
Subject(s)
Keywords
Fulltext
Print
XML
PubMed Links
Search on Google

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Antibodies, Neutralizing / COVID-19 Serological Testing / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Clin Virol Journal subject: Virology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE
LILACS
LIS
Fulltext
Print
XML
PubMed Links
Search on Google

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Antibodies, Neutralizing / COVID-19 Serological Testing / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Clin Virol Journal subject: Virology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article