Correlation of Automated Chemiluminescent Method with Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) Antibody Titers in Convalescent COVID-19 Plasma Samples: Development of Rapid, Cost-Effective Semi-Quantitative Diagnostic Methods.
COVID-19
ELISA
antibody
chemiluminescence
titers
Journal
Journal of blood medicine
ISSN: 1179-2736
Titre abrégé: J Blood Med
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101550884
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
22
12
2020
accepted:
23
02
2021
entrez:
25
3
2021
pubmed:
26
3
2021
medline:
26
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We investigated the utility of an automated chemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay platform in quantifying the amount of binding antibodies present in donated convalescent plasma. A total of 179 convalescent plasma units were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using the Beckman-Coulter chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) platform. The equipment-derived numerical values (S/Co ratio) were recorded. Aliquots from the same units were subjected to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that detects IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. The relationship between ELISA titers and CLIA S/Co values was analyzed using linear regression and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. Twenty-one samples (11.7%) had S/Co values of less than 1.0 and were deemed negative for antibodies and convalescent plasma had S/Co values between >1.0 and 5.0 (70/179, 39.1%). Fifteen units (8.4%) had negative ELISA titer. The majority of the units (95/179. 53.1%) had titers ≥1:1024. The sensitivities of ELISA to CLIA were comparable (90.5% vs 88.3%, respectively; p=0.18). There was positive linear correlation between CLIA S/Co values and ELISA IgG titer (Rho = 0.75; Spearman's rank = 0.82, p-value = <0.0001). The agreement between the two methods was fair, with a κ index of 0.2741. Using the ROC analysis, we identified a CLIA S/Co cutoff value of 8.2, which gives a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 82% in predicting a titer dilution of ≥1:1024. The utility of automated antibody detection systems can be extended from simply a screening method to a semi-quantitative and quantitative functional antibody analysis. CLIA S/Co values can be used to reliably estimate the ELISA antibody titer. Incorporation of chemiluminescent-based methods can provide rapid, cost-effective means of identifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers in donated plasma for use in the treatment of COVID-19 infection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We investigated the utility of an automated chemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay platform in quantifying the amount of binding antibodies present in donated convalescent plasma.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 179 convalescent plasma units were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using the Beckman-Coulter chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) platform. The equipment-derived numerical values (S/Co ratio) were recorded. Aliquots from the same units were subjected to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that detects IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein. The relationship between ELISA titers and CLIA S/Co values was analyzed using linear regression and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-one samples (11.7%) had S/Co values of less than 1.0 and were deemed negative for antibodies and convalescent plasma had S/Co values between >1.0 and 5.0 (70/179, 39.1%). Fifteen units (8.4%) had negative ELISA titer. The majority of the units (95/179. 53.1%) had titers ≥1:1024. The sensitivities of ELISA to CLIA were comparable (90.5% vs 88.3%, respectively; p=0.18). There was positive linear correlation between CLIA S/Co values and ELISA IgG titer (Rho = 0.75; Spearman's rank = 0.82, p-value = <0.0001). The agreement between the two methods was fair, with a κ index of 0.2741. Using the ROC analysis, we identified a CLIA S/Co cutoff value of 8.2, which gives a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 82% in predicting a titer dilution of ≥1:1024.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The utility of automated antibody detection systems can be extended from simply a screening method to a semi-quantitative and quantitative functional antibody analysis. CLIA S/Co values can be used to reliably estimate the ELISA antibody titer. Incorporation of chemiluminescent-based methods can provide rapid, cost-effective means of identifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers in donated plasma for use in the treatment of COVID-19 infection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33762863
doi: 10.2147/JBM.S296730
pii: 296730
pmc: PMC7982562
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
157-164Informations de copyright
© 2021 Mendoza et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No conflicting relationship exists for any author.
Références
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Nov;10(11):DC22-DC25
pubmed: 28050368
Nat Med. 2020 Nov;26(11):1708-1713
pubmed: 32934372
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):2243-2247
pubmed: 32510168
Euro Surveill. 2020 Apr;25(16):
pubmed: 32347204
Nat Biotechnol. 2020 Sep;38(9):1073-1078
pubmed: 32704169
J Intern Med. 2021 Apr;289(4):559-573
pubmed: 33034095
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):398-400
pubmed: 32113510
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Nov 18;58(12):
pubmed: 32917729
Auto Immun Highlights. 2017 Dec;8(1):9
pubmed: 28647912
Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Dec;9(1):680-686
pubmed: 32207377
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2484-2487
pubmed: 32579877
Nature. 2020 Aug;584(7821):437-442
pubmed: 32555388
Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2020 Aug 14;2020:2164685
pubmed: 32855748
JAMA. 2020 Apr 28;323(16):1582-1589
pubmed: 32219428
JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Oct 1;180(10):1356-1362
pubmed: 32808970
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104540
pubmed: 32652475
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018 Jun 11;14:1091-1097
pubmed: 29928124
J Clin Invest. 2020 Nov 2;130(11):6141-6150
pubmed: 32764200
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Apr 28;117(17):9490-9496
pubmed: 32253318
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32245835
Biochem J. 1983 Oct 15;216(1):185-94
pubmed: 6316935
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 10;383(11):1085-1087
pubmed: 32706954
APMIS. 2015 Aug;123(8):648-51
pubmed: 26140432