Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Evaluation and comparison of four quantitative SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in COVID-19 patients and immunized healthy individuals, cancer patients, and patients with immunosuppressive therapy.
Chan, Agnes; Martinez-Cajas, Jorge; Yip, Paul M; Kulasingam, Vathany; Garland, Jocelyn; Holland, David; Shamseddin, M Khaled; Gong, Yanping.
  • Chan A; Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston K7L 3N6, Ontario, Canada.
  • Martinez-Cajas J; Division of Infectious Diseases, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston K7L 3N6, Ontario, Canada.
  • Yip PM; Biochemistry Division, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada.
  • Kulasingam V; Clinical Biochemistry Division, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Canada.
  • Garland J; Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Canada.
  • Holland D; Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Canada.
  • Shamseddin MK; Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Canada.
  • Gong Y; Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston K7L 3N6, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: Yanping.Gong@kingstonhsc.ca.
Clin Biochem ; 116: 1-6, 2023 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2254229
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Semi-quantitative and quantitative immunoassays are the most commonly used methodology to evaluate immunity post immunization.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare four quantitative SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in COVID-19 patients and immunized healthy individuals, cancer patients, and patients with immunosuppressive therapy. STUDY

DESIGN:

210 serological samples from COVID-19 infection and vaccination cohorts were used to create a serological sample repository. Serological methods from four manufacturers, namely Euroimmun, Roche, Abbott, and DiaSorin, were evaluated for quantitative, semi-quantitative, and qualitative antibody measurements. All four methods measure IgG antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain and report the results in Binding Antibody Unit/mL (BAU/mL). A Total Error Allowable (TEa) of ±25% was chosen as the criteria to determine whether two methods are clinically equivalent quantitatively. Semi-quantitative results (titers) were derived using numeric antibody concentration divided by the cut-off value for each method.

RESULTS:

All paired quantitative comparisons demonstrated unacceptable performance. With ±25% as TEa, the best agreement was 74 (35.2% out of 210 samples) between Euroimmun and DiaSorin, whereas the lowest agreement was 11 (5.2% out of 210 samples) between Euroimmun and Roche. Antibody titers amongst all four methods were significantly different (p < 0.001). The highest titer difference from the same sample is between Roche and DiaSorin with a 1392-fold difference. On qualitative comparison, none of the paired comparison showed acceptable comparison (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Poor correlation exists between four evaluated assays, quantitatively, semi-quantitatively, and qualitatively. Further harmonization of assays is required to achieve comparable measurements.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 / Neoplasms Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Qualitative research Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Biochem Year: 2023 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.clinbiochem.2023.02.010

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 / Neoplasms Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Qualitative research Topics: Vaccines Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Clin Biochem Year: 2023 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.clinbiochem.2023.02.010