Cargando…

The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing

Sensitive serological testing is essential to estimate the proportion of the population exposed or infected with SARS-CoV-2, to guide booster vaccination and to select patients for treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The performance of serological tests is usually evaluated at 14–21 days post...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Torres Ortiz, Arturo, Fenn Torrente, Fernanda, Twigg, Adam, Hatcher, James, Saso, Anja, Lam, Tanya, Johnson, Marina, Wagstaffe, Helen, Dhillon, Rishi, Mai, Anabelle Lea, Goldblatt, David, Still, Rachel, Buckland, Matthew, Gilmour, Kimberly, Grandjean, Louis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9214469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35732870
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14351-2
_version_ 1784731024198991872
author Torres Ortiz, Arturo
Fenn Torrente, Fernanda
Twigg, Adam
Hatcher, James
Saso, Anja
Lam, Tanya
Johnson, Marina
Wagstaffe, Helen
Dhillon, Rishi
Mai, Anabelle Lea
Goldblatt, David
Still, Rachel
Buckland, Matthew
Gilmour, Kimberly
Grandjean, Louis
author_facet Torres Ortiz, Arturo
Fenn Torrente, Fernanda
Twigg, Adam
Hatcher, James
Saso, Anja
Lam, Tanya
Johnson, Marina
Wagstaffe, Helen
Dhillon, Rishi
Mai, Anabelle Lea
Goldblatt, David
Still, Rachel
Buckland, Matthew
Gilmour, Kimberly
Grandjean, Louis
author_sort Torres Ortiz, Arturo
collection PubMed
description Sensitive serological testing is essential to estimate the proportion of the population exposed or infected with SARS-CoV-2, to guide booster vaccination and to select patients for treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The performance of serological tests is usually evaluated at 14–21 days post infection. This approach fails to take account of the important effect of time on test performance after infection or exposure has occurred. We performed parallel serological testing using 4 widely used assays (a multiplexed SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein (N), Spike (S) and Receptor Binding Domain assay from Meso Scale Discovery (MSD), the Roche Elecsys-Nucleoprotein (Roche-N) and Spike (Roche-S) assays and the Abbott Nucleoprotein assay (Abbott-N) on serial positive monthly samples collected as part of the Co-STARs study (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04380896) up to 200 days following infection. Our findings demonstrate the considerable effect of time since symptom onset on the diagnostic sensitivity of different assays. Using a time-to-event analysis, we demonstrated that 50% of the Abbott nucleoprotein assays will give a negative result after 175 days (median survival time 95% CI 168–185 days), compared to the better performance over time of the Roche Elecsys nucleoprotein assay (93% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 88–97%). Assays targeting the spike protein showed a lower decline over the follow-up period, both for the MSD spike assay (97% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 95–99%) and the Roche Elecsys spike assay (95% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 93–97%). The best performing quantitative Roche Elecsys Spike assay showed no evidence of waning Spike antibody titers over the 200-day time course of the study. We have shown that compared to other assays evaluated, the Abbott-N assay fails to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as time passes since infection. In contrast the Roche Elecsys Spike Assay and the MSD assay maintained a high sensitivity for the 200-day duration of the study. These limitations of the Abbott assay should be considered when quantifying the immune correlates of protection or the need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapy. The high levels of maintained detectable neutralizing spike antibody titers identified by the quantitative Roche Elecsys assay is encouraging and provides further evidence in support of long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 protection following natural infection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9214469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92144692022-06-22 The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing Torres Ortiz, Arturo Fenn Torrente, Fernanda Twigg, Adam Hatcher, James Saso, Anja Lam, Tanya Johnson, Marina Wagstaffe, Helen Dhillon, Rishi Mai, Anabelle Lea Goldblatt, David Still, Rachel Buckland, Matthew Gilmour, Kimberly Grandjean, Louis Sci Rep Article Sensitive serological testing is essential to estimate the proportion of the population exposed or infected with SARS-CoV-2, to guide booster vaccination and to select patients for treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The performance of serological tests is usually evaluated at 14–21 days post infection. This approach fails to take account of the important effect of time on test performance after infection or exposure has occurred. We performed parallel serological testing using 4 widely used assays (a multiplexed SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein (N), Spike (S) and Receptor Binding Domain assay from Meso Scale Discovery (MSD), the Roche Elecsys-Nucleoprotein (Roche-N) and Spike (Roche-S) assays and the Abbott Nucleoprotein assay (Abbott-N) on serial positive monthly samples collected as part of the Co-STARs study (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04380896) up to 200 days following infection. Our findings demonstrate the considerable effect of time since symptom onset on the diagnostic sensitivity of different assays. Using a time-to-event analysis, we demonstrated that 50% of the Abbott nucleoprotein assays will give a negative result after 175 days (median survival time 95% CI 168–185 days), compared to the better performance over time of the Roche Elecsys nucleoprotein assay (93% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 88–97%). Assays targeting the spike protein showed a lower decline over the follow-up period, both for the MSD spike assay (97% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 95–99%) and the Roche Elecsys spike assay (95% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 93–97%). The best performing quantitative Roche Elecsys Spike assay showed no evidence of waning Spike antibody titers over the 200-day time course of the study. We have shown that compared to other assays evaluated, the Abbott-N assay fails to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as time passes since infection. In contrast the Roche Elecsys Spike Assay and the MSD assay maintained a high sensitivity for the 200-day duration of the study. These limitations of the Abbott assay should be considered when quantifying the immune correlates of protection or the need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapy. The high levels of maintained detectable neutralizing spike antibody titers identified by the quantitative Roche Elecsys assay is encouraging and provides further evidence in support of long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 protection following natural infection. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9214469/ /pubmed/35732870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14351-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Torres Ortiz, Arturo
Fenn Torrente, Fernanda
Twigg, Adam
Hatcher, James
Saso, Anja
Lam, Tanya
Johnson, Marina
Wagstaffe, Helen
Dhillon, Rishi
Mai, Anabelle Lea
Goldblatt, David
Still, Rachel
Buckland, Matthew
Gilmour, Kimberly
Grandjean, Louis
The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing
title The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing
title_full The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing
title_fullStr The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing
title_full_unstemmed The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing
title_short The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing
title_sort influence of time on the sensitivity of sars-cov-2 serological testing
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9214469/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35732870
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14351-2
work_keys_str_mv AT torresortizarturo theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT fenntorrentefernanda theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT twiggadam theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT hatcherjames theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT sasoanja theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT lamtanya theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT johnsonmarina theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT wagstaffehelen theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT dhillonrishi theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT maianabellelea theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT goldblattdavid theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT stillrachel theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT bucklandmatthew theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT gilmourkimberly theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT grandjeanlouis theinfluenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT torresortizarturo influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT fenntorrentefernanda influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT twiggadam influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT hatcherjames influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT sasoanja influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT lamtanya influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT johnsonmarina influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT wagstaffehelen influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT dhillonrishi influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT maianabellelea influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT goldblattdavid influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT stillrachel influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT bucklandmatthew influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT gilmourkimberly influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting
AT grandjeanlouis influenceoftimeonthesensitivityofsarscov2serologicaltesting