Evaluation of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from dried blood spots collected from cohorts with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
COVID-19
DBS
Diagnostics
Dried blood spots
SARS-CoV-2
Surveillance
Journal
Journal of clinical virology plus
ISSN: 2667-0380
Titre abrégé: J Clin Virol Plus
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918283581506676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
revised:
01
06
2022
accepted:
23
06
2022
pubmed:
30
6
2022
medline:
30
6
2022
entrez:
29
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dried blood spot (DBS) specimens are a useful serosurveillance tool particularly in hard-to-reach populations but their application for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection is poorly characterised. To compare detection of naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in paired DBS and serum specimens using commercially available serological immunoassays. Specimens were collected through St Vincent's Hospital observational post COVID-19 cohort study (ADAPT). Laboratory spotted DBS from venepuncture were initially tested on seven assays, a DBS validation completed on three with clinically collected fingerstick DBSs tested on one. Sensitivity for Euroimmun nucleocapsid (NCP) IgG ELISA from laboratory spotted DBS (n=145), Euroimmun spike, IgG ELISA from laboratory spotted DBS (n=161), and Binding Site total antibody ELISA from clinically collected fingerstick DBS (n=391) was 100% (95% CI: 95.8-100%), 100% (95% CI: 95.8-100%) and 92.9% (95% CI: 89.5-95.5%), respectively. Specificity was 66.2% (95% CI: 53.6-77.0%), 96% (95% CI: 88.7-99.1%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 93.3-99.9%), respectively. All three assays' results displayed a strong positive correlation between DBS compared to paired serum. The Binding Site™ spike total antibody and Euroimmun™ spike IgG ELISAs provided good analytical performance, demonstrating that DBS specimens could facilitate specimen collection in the epidemiological surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is highly applicable in populations and settings where venepuncture is problematic (including community based regional/remote settings, nursing homes, prisons, and schools).
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Dried blood spot (DBS) specimens are a useful serosurveillance tool particularly in hard-to-reach populations but their application for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection is poorly characterised.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
To compare detection of naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in paired DBS and serum specimens using commercially available serological immunoassays.
Study Design
UNASSIGNED
Specimens were collected through St Vincent's Hospital observational post COVID-19 cohort study (ADAPT). Laboratory spotted DBS from venepuncture were initially tested on seven assays, a DBS validation completed on three with clinically collected fingerstick DBSs tested on one.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Sensitivity for Euroimmun nucleocapsid (NCP) IgG ELISA from laboratory spotted DBS (n=145), Euroimmun spike, IgG ELISA from laboratory spotted DBS (n=161), and Binding Site total antibody ELISA from clinically collected fingerstick DBS (n=391) was 100% (95% CI: 95.8-100%), 100% (95% CI: 95.8-100%) and 92.9% (95% CI: 89.5-95.5%), respectively. Specificity was 66.2% (95% CI: 53.6-77.0%), 96% (95% CI: 88.7-99.1%) and 98.8% (95% CI: 93.3-99.9%), respectively. All three assays' results displayed a strong positive correlation between DBS compared to paired serum.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The Binding Site™ spike total antibody and Euroimmun™ spike IgG ELISAs provided good analytical performance, demonstrating that DBS specimens could facilitate specimen collection in the epidemiological surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is highly applicable in populations and settings where venepuncture is problematic (including community based regional/remote settings, nursing homes, prisons, and schools).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35765384
doi: 10.1016/j.jcvp.2022.100093
pii: S2667-0380(22)00032-1
pmc: PMC9225964
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100093Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Oct 31;9(2):e0017821
pubmed: 34549995
Int J Drug Policy. 2015 Oct;26(10):922-35
pubmed: 26077144
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2018 Aug;99(2):256-265
pubmed: 29968557
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 19;10(1):20188
pubmed: 33214612
Viruses. 2021 May 22;13(6):
pubmed: 34067361
Int J Drug Policy. 2017 Sep;47:34-46
pubmed: 28797498
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Nov;27(11):1695.e7-1695.e12
pubmed: 34245905
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 15;16(3):e0248218
pubmed: 33720928
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2021 Jan 08;59(5):979-985
pubmed: 33554537
Antivir Ther. 2009;14(5):619-29
pubmed: 19704164
Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 11;12(1):3566
pubmed: 34117227
ERJ Open Res. 2021 Nov 01;7(4):
pubmed: 34725634
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):265-269
pubmed: 32015508
J Clin Med. 2020 Oct 01;9(10):
pubmed: 33019628
Med J Aust. 2021 Apr;214(6):279-280
pubmed: 33657671
Viruses. 2021 Jul 14;13(7):
pubmed: 34372570
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;26(12):2970-2973
pubmed: 32969788
Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2021 Oct-Dec;57(4):265-271
pubmed: 35076416
J Immunol Methods. 2021 Jul;494:113046
pubmed: 33775672
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 7;16(12):e0261003
pubmed: 34874948
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021 Sep;101(1):115425
pubmed: 34116343
Public Health. 2017 Dec;153:128-136
pubmed: 29035801
Microorganisms. 2021 Mar 08;9(3):
pubmed: 33800489
Immun Inflamm Dis. 2022 Mar;10(3):e583
pubmed: 34965032
J Virol. 2004 Aug;78(15):7863-6
pubmed: 15254158
Int J Drug Policy. 2015 Nov;26(11):1050-5
pubmed: 26118799
Microbiol Spectr. 2021 Sep 3;9(1):e0013421
pubmed: 34319133