Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of 3 SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody Assays and Correlation with Neutralizing Antibodies.
Rychert, Jenna; Couturier, Marc Roger; Elgort, Marc; Lozier, Bucky Ken; La'ulu, Sonia; Genzen, Jonathan R; Straseski, Joely A; Delgado, Julio C; Slev, Patricia R.
Afiliación
  • Rychert J; ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Couturier MR; Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Elgort M; ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Lozier BK; Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • La'ulu S; ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Genzen JR; ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Straseski JA; ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Delgado JC; ARUP Institute for Clinical and Experimental Pathology, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Slev PR; Department of Pathology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
J Appl Lab Med ; 6(3): 614-624, 2021 Apr 29.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33064790
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

As serologic assays for SARS-CoV-2 become more widely utilized, it is important to understand their performance characteristics and correlation with neutralizing antibodies. We evaluated 3 commonly used SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays (Abbott, DiaSorin, and EUROIMMUN) for clinical sensitivity, specificity, and correlation with neutralizing antibodies, and then compared antibody kinetics during the acute phase of infection.

METHODS:

Three panels of samples were tested on every assay. Sensitivity was assessed using a panel of 35 specimens serially collected from 7 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19. Specificity was determined using 100 sera samples collected in 2018 from healthy individuals prior to the outbreak. Analytical specificity was determined using a panel of 37 samples from individuals with respiratory illnesses other than COVID-19.

RESULTS:

Clinical sensitivity was 91.43% (95% CI 76.94-98.20%) for Abbott, and 88.57% (95% CI 73.26-96.80%) for both DiaSorin and EUROIMMUN. Clinical specificity was 99.00% (95% CI 94.55-99.97%) for Abbott and DiaSorin and 94.00% (95% CI 87.40-97.77%) for EUROIMMUN. The IgG assays demonstrated good qualitative agreement (minimum of 94%) and good correlation between the quantitative result for each combination of assays (r2 ≥ 0.90). The neutralizing antibody response did not necessarily follow the same temporal kinetics as the IgG response and did not necessarily correlate with IgG values.

CONCLUSION:

The 3 IgG antibody assays demonstrated comparable performance characteristics. Importantly, a qualitative positive IgG result obtained with any of the assays was associated with the presence of neutralizing antibodies; however, neutralizing antibody concentrations did not correlate well with signal to cutoff ratios.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Inmunoglobulina G / Anticuerpos Neutralizantes / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 / Anticuerpos Antivirales Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Appl Lab Med Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Inmunoglobulina G / Anticuerpos Neutralizantes / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 / Anticuerpos Antivirales Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Appl Lab Med Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article