Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 J+Appl+Lab+Med 2021 ; 6 (3): 614-624 Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Evaluation of 3 SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody Assays and Correlation with Neutralizing Antibodies #MMPMID33064790
J Appl Lab Med 2021[Apr]; 6 (3): 614-624 PMID33064790show ga
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.