» Articles » PMID: 32603801

Validation of a Commercially Available SARS-CoV-2 Serological Immunoassay

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2020 Jul 1
PMID 32603801
Citations 110
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19.

Methods: In this unmatched (1:2) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 326 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay.

Results: COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.990 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.983-0.996) and 0.978 (95%CI: 0.967-0.989), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.01). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 2.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 99-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 96-100). A 0.8 cut-off displayed a 94% sensitivity (95%CI: 88-97) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 95-99). Substituting the upper threshold for the manufacturer's, improved assay performance, leaving 8.9% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.8-2.5.

Conclusions: The Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.

Citing Articles

Symptoms Six Weeks After COVID-19 Are Reduced Among US Health Care Personnel Receiving Additional Vaccine Doses During the Omicron Period, December 2021-April 2022.

Mohr N, Plumb I, Santos Leon E, Pinckney M, Harland K, Krishnadasan A Open Forum Infect Dis. 2024; 11(10):ofae545.

PMID: 39416989 PMC: 11481461. DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofae545.


Exploratory study of antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 using an indirect immunoperoxidase assay in COVID-19 patients and vaccinated volunteers.

Katoh S, Yasuda I, Kitakawa K, Hamaguchi S, Sando E Trop Med Health. 2024; 52(1):65.

PMID: 39343951 PMC: 11439312. DOI: 10.1186/s41182-024-00635-y.


Hybrid Immunity Protects against Antibody Fading after SARS-CoV-2mRNA Vaccination in Kidney Transplant Recipients, Dialysis Patients, and Medical Personnel: 9 Months Data from the Prospective, Observational Dia-Vacc Study.

Stumpf J, Siepmann T, Schwobel J, Karger C, Lindner T, Faulhaber-Walter R Vaccines (Basel). 2024; 12(7).

PMID: 39066439 PMC: 11281450. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12070801.


Bayesian workflow for time-varying transmission in stratified compartmental infectious disease transmission models.

Bouman J, Hauser A, Grimm S, Wohlfender M, Bhatt S, Semenova E PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(4):e1011575.

PMID: 38683878 PMC: 11081492. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011575.


The Impact of Clinical Factors and SARS-CoV-2 Variants on Antibody Production in Vaccinated German Healthcare Professionals Infected Either with the Delta or the Omicron Variant.

Gerhards C, Steingass M, Heininger A, Lange B, Hetjens M, Gerigk M Vaccines (Basel). 2024; 12(2).

PMID: 38400146 PMC: 10893335. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12020163.


References
1.
Corman V, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu D . Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020; 25(3). PMC: 6988269. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045. View

2.
Seibel M, Koeller M, Van der Velden B, Diel I . Long-term variability of bone turnover markers in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer. Clin Lab. 2002; 48(11-12):579-82. View

3.
Zeng F, Hon C, Yip C, Law K, Yeung Y, Chan K . Quantitative comparison of the efficiency of antibodies against S1 and S2 subunit of SARS coronavirus spike protein in virus neutralization and blocking of receptor binding: implications for the functional roles of S2 subunit. FEBS Lett. 2006; 580(24):5612-20. PMC: 7094555. DOI: 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.08.085. View

4.
GeurtsvanKessel C, Okba N, Igloi Z, Bogers S, Embregts C, Laksono B . An evaluation of COVID-19 serological assays informs future diagnostics and exposure assessment. Nat Commun. 2020; 11(1):3436. PMC: 7338506. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17317-y. View

5.
Meyer B, Drosten C, Muller M . Serological assays for emerging coronaviruses: challenges and pitfalls. Virus Res. 2014; 194:175-83. PMC: 7114385. DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2014.03.018. View