Evaluation of the correlation between the access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests with the SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test.

Fully automated immunoassays for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies that are strongly correlated with neutralization antibodies (nAbs) are clinically important because they enable the assessment of humoral immunity after infection and vaccination. Access SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) II antibody tests are semi-quantitative, fully automated immunoassays that detect anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies and might reflect nAb levels in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, no studies have investigated the clinical utility of these tests in association with nAbs to date. To evaluate the clinical utility of Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests and their correlation with the SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) that measures nAbs in patients with COVID-19, we analyzed 54 convalescent serum samples from COVID-19 patients and 89 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients. The presence of anti-RBD antibodies was detected using Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests, while nAbs were measured by sVNT. The sensitivity and specificity of sVNT were 94.4% and 98.9%, respectively. There were strong positive correlations between the inhibition values of sVNT and the results of the Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM (R = 0.95, R2  = 0.90, p < 0.001) and IgG II antibody tests (R = 0.96, R2  = 0.92, p < 0.001). In terms of the presence of nAbs, the sensitivity and specificity were 98.1% and 98.9% in the IgM assay and 100.0% and 100.0% in the IgG II assay, respectively. The Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests showed high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of nAbs in COVID-19 patients and might be alternatives for measuring nAbs.

Kitagawa Y ，Imai K ，Matsuoka M ，Fukada A ，Kubota K ，Sato M ，Takada T ，Noguchi S ，Tarumoto N ，Maesaki S ，Takeuchi S ，Maeda T ... -  《-》

Performance evaluation of three automated quantitative immunoassays and their correlation with a surrogate virus neutralization test in coronavirus disease 19 patients and pre-pandemic controls.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is currently ongoing, meanwhile vaccinations are rapidly underway in some countries. The quantitative immunoassays detecting antibodies against spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2 have been developed based on the findings that they have a better correlation with the neutralizing antibody. The performances of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, and Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S were evaluated on 173 sera from 126 SARS-CoV-2 patients and 151 pre-pandemic sera. Their correlations with GenScript cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit were also analyzed on 173 sera from 126 SARS-CoV-2 patients. Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S showed the highest overall sensitivity (96.0%), followed by LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (93.6%). The specificities of Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S and LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG were 100.0%, followed by Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (99.3%). Regarding the correlation with cPass neutralization antibody assay, LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG showed the best correlation (Spearman rho = 0.88), followed by Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (all rho = 0.87). The three automated quantitative immunoassays showed good diagnostic performance and strong correlations with neutralization antibodies. These assays will be useful in diagnostic assistance, evaluating the response to vaccination, and the assessment of herd immunity in the future.

Jung K ，Shin S ，Nam M ，Hong YJ ，Roh EY ，Park KU ，Song EY ... -  《-》

The Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-Protein IgG, Which Is Detected Using the Chemiluminescence Microparticle Immunoassay (CMIA) in Individuals Having Either a History of COVID-19 Vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Showed a High-Titer Neutralizing Effect.

Cin D ，Soguksu P ，Oren MM ，Ozgulnar N ，Agacfidan A ，Mese S ... -  《Viruses-Basel》

Performance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott).

The aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.

Charpentier C ，Ichou H ，Damond F ，Bouvet E ，Chaix ML ，Ferré V ，Delaugerre C ，Mahjoub N ，Larrouy L ，Le Hingrat Q ，Visseaux B ，Mackiewicz V ，Descamps D ，Fidouh-Houhou N ... -  《-》

Clinical validation of the Siemens quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay (sCOVG) reveals improved sensitivity and a good correlation with virus neutralization titers.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections cause coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and induce a specific antibody response. Serological assays detecting IgG against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein are useful to monitor the immune response after infection or vaccination. The objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG) assay. Sensitivity and specificity of the Siemens sCOVG test were evaluated on 178 patients with SARS-CoV-2-infection and 160 pre-pandemic samples in comparison with its predecessor test COV2G. Furthermore, correlation with virus neutralization titers was investigated on 134 samples of convalescent COVID-19 patients. Specificity of the sCOVG test was 99.4% and sensitivity was 90.5% (COV2G assay 78.7%; p<0.0001). S1-RBD antibody levels showed a good correlation with virus neutralization titers (r=0.843; p<0.0001) and an overall qualitative agreement of 98.5%. Finally, median S1-RBD IgG levels increase with age and were significantly higher in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (median levels general ward: 25.7 U/mL; intensive care: 59.5 U/mL) than in outpatients (3.8 U/mL; p<0.0001). Performance characteristics of the sCOVG assay have been improved compared to the predecessor test COV2G. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 S1-RBD IgG levels could be used as a surrogate for virus neutralization capacity. Further harmonization of antibody quantification might assist to monitor the humoral immune response after COVID-19 disease or vaccination.

Irsara C ，Egger AE ，Prokop W ，Nairz M ，Loacker L ，Sahanic S ，Pizzini A ，Sonnweber T ，Holzer B ，Mayer W ，Schennach H ，Loeffler-Ragg J ，Bellmann-Weiler R ，Hartmann B ，Tancevski I ，Weiss G ，Binder CJ ，Anliker M ，Griesmacher A ，Hoermann G ... -  《-》