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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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