Performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and Omicron BA.1 antibody assays compared with pseudovirus neutralization tests
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V..
BACKGROUND: Commercially available ELISA-based antibody tests are used to approximate vaccination success against SARS-CoV-2 in at-risk patients, but it is unclear whether they correlate with neutralization of the Omicron variant.
METHODS: 269 serum samples of a cohort of 44 non-immunosuppressed participants and 65 MTX-treated rheumatic patients taken before and after COVID-19 booster vaccinations were measured using COVID-19 antibody testing systems with wild-type and Omicron BA.1 antigens developed by three different manufacturers (surrogate virus neutralization test cPass, and binding antibody tests QuantiVac and SeraSpot), as well as with a pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT). The pVNT was considered the gold standard for determining the presence and level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
RESULTS: All three wild-type ELISAs showed excellent test performance compared with wild-type neutralization in pVNT. However, out of 56 samples without Omicron BA.1 neutralization in pVNT, 71.4% showed positive results in at least one and 28.6% in all three wild-type ELISAs at the manufacturer-defined cut-offs. Omicron ELISAs showed either decreased specificity (57.1% and 55.4% for binding ELISAs) or sensitivity (51.2% in cPass) compared to Omicron neutralization in pVNT. The proportion of any false positive results among all samples decreased from 26.5% before to 3.2% after booster vaccination, however binding antibody test specificities remained below 70%.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a poorer test performance of new Omicron antibody test systems compared to wild-type tests in detecting neutralizing antibodies against the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 variants. Decisions for booster vaccination or passive immunization of at-risk patients should not be based solely on antibody test results.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:165 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology - 165(2023) vom: 17. Aug., Seite 105518 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Habermann, E [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Antibodies, Neutralizing |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 11.07.2023 Date Revised 18.07.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105518 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM358560586 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM358560586 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226075017.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105518 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1195.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM358560586 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37354690 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S1386-6532(23)00141-5 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Habermann, E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Performance of commercial SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and Omicron BA.1 antibody assays compared with pseudovirus neutralization tests |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 11.07.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 18.07.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Commercially available ELISA-based antibody tests are used to approximate vaccination success against SARS-CoV-2 in at-risk patients, but it is unclear whether they correlate with neutralization of the Omicron variant | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: 269 serum samples of a cohort of 44 non-immunosuppressed participants and 65 MTX-treated rheumatic patients taken before and after COVID-19 booster vaccinations were measured using COVID-19 antibody testing systems with wild-type and Omicron BA.1 antigens developed by three different manufacturers (surrogate virus neutralization test cPass, and binding antibody tests QuantiVac and SeraSpot), as well as with a pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT). The pVNT was considered the gold standard for determining the presence and level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: All three wild-type ELISAs showed excellent test performance compared with wild-type neutralization in pVNT. However, out of 56 samples without Omicron BA.1 neutralization in pVNT, 71.4% showed positive results in at least one and 28.6% in all three wild-type ELISAs at the manufacturer-defined cut-offs. Omicron ELISAs showed either decreased specificity (57.1% and 55.4% for binding ELISAs) or sensitivity (51.2% in cPass) compared to Omicron neutralization in pVNT. The proportion of any false positive results among all samples decreased from 26.5% before to 3.2% after booster vaccination, however binding antibody test specificities remained below 70% | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: We found a poorer test performance of new Omicron antibody test systems compared to wild-type tests in detecting neutralizing antibodies against the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 variants. Decisions for booster vaccination or passive immunization of at-risk patients should not be based solely on antibody test results | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Antibodies, Neutralizing |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Antibodies, Viral |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Frommert, L M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ghannam, K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nguyen My, L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gieselmann, L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tober-Lau, P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Klotsche, J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Arumahandi de Silva, A N |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ten Hagen, A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zernicke, J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kurth, F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sander, L E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Klein, F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Burmester, G R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Biesen, R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Albach, F N |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology |d 1997 |g 165(2023) vom: 17. Aug., Seite 105518 |w (DE-627)NLM097223964 |x 1873-5967 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:165 |g year:2023 |g day:17 |g month:08 |g pages:105518 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2023.105518 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 165 |j 2023 |b 17 |c 08 |h 105518 | ||