Cargando…
A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021
Our group has previously used laboratory and commercially developed assays to understand the IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including nucleocapsid (N), spike (S), and receptor binding domain (RBD), in Canadian blood donors. In this current study, we analyzed 17,428 available and previously ch...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Society for Microbiology
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9241784/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35652636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01134-22 |
_version_ | 1784737893241061376 |
---|---|
author | Abe, Kento T. Rathod, Bhavisha Colwill, Karen Gingras, Anne-Claude Tuite, Ashleigh Robbins, Ninette F. Orjuela, Guillermo Jenkins, Craig Conrod, Valerie Yi, Qi-Long O’Brien, Sheila F. Drews, Steven J. |
author_facet | Abe, Kento T. Rathod, Bhavisha Colwill, Karen Gingras, Anne-Claude Tuite, Ashleigh Robbins, Ninette F. Orjuela, Guillermo Jenkins, Craig Conrod, Valerie Yi, Qi-Long O’Brien, Sheila F. Drews, Steven J. |
author_sort | Abe, Kento T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Our group has previously used laboratory and commercially developed assays to understand the IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including nucleocapsid (N), spike (S), and receptor binding domain (RBD), in Canadian blood donors. In this current study, we analyzed 17,428 available and previously characterized retention samples collected from April 2020 to March 2021. The analysis compared the characteristics of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott anti-spike [S], Abbott, Chicago, IL) against four other IgG assays. The Abbott anti-S assay has a qualitative threshold of 50 AU/mL. The four comparator assays were the Abbott anti-nucleocapsid (N) assay and three commonly used Canadian in-house IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) recognizing distinct recombinant viral antigens, full-length spike glycoprotein, glycoprotein RBD, and nucleocapsid. The strongest qualitative relationship was between Sinai RBD and the Abbott anti-S assay (kappa, 0.707; standard error [SE] of kappa, 0.018; 95% confidence interval, 0.671 to 0.743). We then scored each previously characterized specimen as positive when two anti-SARS-COV-2 assays identified anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the specimen. Using this composite reference standard approach, the sensitivity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 95.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.27 to 97.63%). The specificity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 99.35% (95% CI, 99.21 to 99.46%). Our study provides context on the use of commonly used SARS-CoV-2 serologies in Canada and identifies how these assays qualitatively compare to newer commercial assays. Our next steps are to assess how well the Abbott anti-S assays quantitatively detect wild-type and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. IMPORTANCE We describe the qualitative test characteristics of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay against four other anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays commonly used in Canada. Although there is no gold standard for identifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, aggregate standards can be used to assess seropositivity. In this study, we used a specimen bank of previously well-characterized specimens collected between April 2020 and March 2021. The Abbott anti-S assay showed the strongest qualitative relationship with a widely used laboratory-developed IgG assay for the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain. Using the composite reference standard approach, we also showed that the Abbott anti-S assay was highly sensitive and specific. As new anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays are developed, it is important to compare their test characteristics against other assays that have been extensively used in prior research. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9241784 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92417842022-06-30 A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021 Abe, Kento T. Rathod, Bhavisha Colwill, Karen Gingras, Anne-Claude Tuite, Ashleigh Robbins, Ninette F. Orjuela, Guillermo Jenkins, Craig Conrod, Valerie Yi, Qi-Long O’Brien, Sheila F. Drews, Steven J. Microbiol Spectr Research Article Our group has previously used laboratory and commercially developed assays to understand the IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including nucleocapsid (N), spike (S), and receptor binding domain (RBD), in Canadian blood donors. In this current study, we analyzed 17,428 available and previously characterized retention samples collected from April 2020 to March 2021. The analysis compared the characteristics of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott anti-spike [S], Abbott, Chicago, IL) against four other IgG assays. The Abbott anti-S assay has a qualitative threshold of 50 AU/mL. The four comparator assays were the Abbott anti-nucleocapsid (N) assay and three commonly used Canadian in-house IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) recognizing distinct recombinant viral antigens, full-length spike glycoprotein, glycoprotein RBD, and nucleocapsid. The strongest qualitative relationship was between Sinai RBD and the Abbott anti-S assay (kappa, 0.707; standard error [SE] of kappa, 0.018; 95% confidence interval, 0.671 to 0.743). We then scored each previously characterized specimen as positive when two anti-SARS-COV-2 assays identified anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG in the specimen. Using this composite reference standard approach, the sensitivity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 95.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.27 to 97.63%). The specificity of the Abbott anti-S assay was 99.35% (95% CI, 99.21 to 99.46%). Our study provides context on the use of commonly used SARS-CoV-2 serologies in Canada and identifies how these assays qualitatively compare to newer commercial assays. Our next steps are to assess how well the Abbott anti-S assays quantitatively detect wild-type and SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. IMPORTANCE We describe the qualitative test characteristics of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay against four other anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays commonly used in Canada. Although there is no gold standard for identifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, aggregate standards can be used to assess seropositivity. In this study, we used a specimen bank of previously well-characterized specimens collected between April 2020 and March 2021. The Abbott anti-S assay showed the strongest qualitative relationship with a widely used laboratory-developed IgG assay for the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain. Using the composite reference standard approach, we also showed that the Abbott anti-S assay was highly sensitive and specific. As new anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays are developed, it is important to compare their test characteristics against other assays that have been extensively used in prior research. American Society for Microbiology 2022-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9241784/ /pubmed/35652636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01134-22 Text en Copyright © 2022 Abe et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Article Abe, Kento T. Rathod, Bhavisha Colwill, Karen Gingras, Anne-Claude Tuite, Ashleigh Robbins, Ninette F. Orjuela, Guillermo Jenkins, Craig Conrod, Valerie Yi, Qi-Long O’Brien, Sheila F. Drews, Steven J. A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021 |
title | A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021 |
title_full | A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021 |
title_fullStr | A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021 |
title_full_unstemmed | A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021 |
title_short | A Qualitative Comparison of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant Assay against Commonly Used Canadian SARS-CoV-2 Enzyme Immunoassays in Blood Donor Retention Specimens, April 2020 to March 2021 |
title_sort | qualitative comparison of the abbott sars-cov-2 igg ii quant assay against commonly used canadian sars-cov-2 enzyme immunoassays in blood donor retention specimens, april 2020 to march 2021 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9241784/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35652636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01134-22 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abekentot aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT rathodbhavisha aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT colwillkaren aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT gingrasanneclaude aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT tuiteashleigh aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT robbinsninettef aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT orjuelaguillermo aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT jenkinscraig aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT conrodvalerie aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT yiqilong aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT obriensheilaf aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT drewsstevenj aqualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT abekentot qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT rathodbhavisha qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT colwillkaren qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT gingrasanneclaude qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT tuiteashleigh qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT robbinsninettef qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT orjuelaguillermo qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT jenkinscraig qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT conrodvalerie qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT yiqilong qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT obriensheilaf qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 AT drewsstevenj qualitativecomparisonoftheabbottsarscov2iggiiquantassayagainstcommonlyusedcanadiansarscov2enzymeimmunoassaysinblooddonorretentionspecimensapril2020tomarch2021 |