Performance of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quantitative Antibody Assay Including the New Variants of Concern, VOC 202012/V1 (United Kingdom) and VOC 202012/V2 (South Africa), and First Steps towards Global Harmonization of COVID-19 Antibody Methods.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
analytical performance
antibody assay
evaluation
harmonization
serology
variants
Journal
Journal of clinical microbiology
ISSN: 1098-660X
Titre abrégé: J Clin Microbiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505564
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 08 2021
18 08 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
15
7
2021
medline:
24
8
2021
entrez:
14
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the initial stages of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) COVID-19 pandemic, a plethora of new serology tests were developed and introduced to the global market. Many were not evaluated rigorously, and there is a significant lack of concordance in results across methods. To enable meaningful clinical decisions to be made, robustly evaluated, quantitative serology methods are needed. These should be harmonized to a primary reference material, allowing for the comparison of trial data and improved clinical decision making. A comprehensive evaluation of the new Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG method was undertaken using CLSI-based protocols. Two different candidate primary reference materials and verification panels were assessed with a goal to move toward harmonization. The Abbott IgG II method performed well across a wide range of parameters with excellent imprecision (<3.5%) and was linear throughout the positive range (tested to 38,365 AU/ml). The sensitivity (based on ≥14-day post-positive reverse transcription-PCR [RT-PCR] samples) and specificity were 98.3% (90.6% to 100.0%) and 99.5% (97.1% to 100%), respectively. The candidate reference materials showed poor correlation across methods, with mixed responses noted in methods that use the spike protein versus the nucleocapsid proteins as their binding antigen. The Abbott IgG II anti-SARS-CoV-2 measurement appears to be the first linear method potentially capable of monitoring the immune response to natural infection, including from new emerging variants. The candidate reference materials assessed did not generate uniform results across several methods, and further steps are needed to enable the harmonization process.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34260272
doi: 10.1128/JCM.00288-21
pmc: PMC8373017
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0028821Subventions
Organisme : Abbott | Abbott Diagnostics
ID : N/A
Références
Clin Biochem Rev. 2008 Aug;29 Suppl 1:S49-52
pubmed: 18852857
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2018 Sep;55(6):408-419
pubmed: 30001673
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 17;16(2):e0245914
pubmed: 33596236
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2016 Jan;29(1):163-74
pubmed: 26607813
Ann Clin Biochem. 2011 Sep;48(Pt 5):393-409
pubmed: 21795407
Nature. 2020 Oct;586(7830):516-527
pubmed: 32967006
BMJ. 2020 Jul 1;370:m2516
pubmed: 32611558
J Infect Dis. 2009 Sep 15;200(6):888-99
pubmed: 19659440
J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Jun;46(6):1955-60
pubmed: 18434559
J Clin Virol. 2020 Nov;132:104613
pubmed: 32942137
J Int Fed Clin Chem. 1996 Jun;8(2):62-4, 66-7
pubmed: 10163516
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25;6:CD013652
pubmed: 32584464
Clin Chim Acta. 2002 Sep;323(1-2):73-87
pubmed: 12135808
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2019 Feb 20;165:381-385
pubmed: 30590335
Nat Rev Immunol. 2020 Dec;20(12):727-738
pubmed: 33139888
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Oct 21;58(11):
pubmed: 32848041