Antibody response in patients admitted to the hospital with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from a multicenter study across Spain

Fuentes, Ana Yara Postigo; Serrano-Conde, Esther; Roldán, Carolina; Benito-Ruesca, Rafael; Mejías, Gregoria; Sampedro, Antonio; March-Roselló, Gabriel; Fernández-Natal, Isabel; Esperalba, Juliana; Rodríguez, Mario; Aguirre, Paula Martínez de; Salas, Carlos; Roc, María Lourdes; Soria, L.; Parra-Grande, Mónica; Montero, María Dolores; Fernández-Roblas, R.; Luna, Francisco Santos; Lozano, Carlos Blanco; García, Féderico

doi:10.1007/s10096-020-04139-5

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thanks to the simplicity of the method and its automatization, ELISA is used in the clinical practice 8 – 12 . Internal validation from Vircell, S.L.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between commercially available ELISA and in-house Luminex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays

Santano

Barrios

Crispi

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serological diagnostic of the severe respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a valuable tool for the determination of immunity and surveillance of exposure to the virus. In the context of an ongoing pandemic, it is essential to externally validate widely used tests to assure correct diagnostics and epidemiological estimations. We evaluated the performance of the COVID-19 ELISA IgG and the COVID-19 ELISA IgM/A (Vircell, S.L.) against a highly specific and sensitive in-house Luminex immunoassay in a set of samples from pregnant women and cord blood. The agreement between both assays was moderate to high for IgG but low for IgM/A. Considering seropositivity by either IgG and/or IgM/A, the technical performance of the ELISA was highly imbalanced, with 96% sensitivity at the expense of 22% specificity. As for the clinical performance, the negative predictive value reached 87% while the positive predictive value was 51%. Our results stress the need for highly specific and sensitive assays and external validation of diagnostic tests with different sets of samples to avoid the clinical, epidemiological and personal disturbances derived from serological misdiagnosis.

show abstract

“…Thanks to the simplicity of the method and its automatization, ELISA is used in the clinical practice 8 – 12 . Internal validation from Vircell, S.L.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between commercially available ELISA and in-house Luminex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays

Santano

Barrios

Crispi

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11 Genomic sequences were analyzed using Nextclade software v.1.5.4 ( http://clades.nettrain.org ) and Pangolin COVID‐19 Linea Assigner v.2.1.7 ( https://pangolin.cog-uk.io ). Blood specimens were tested for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 spike and nucleocapsid‐specific IgM, IgA using ELISA (IgM+A) from Vircell(Spain) 12 and anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 spike IgG antibodies using Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) from Euroimmun 13 according to the manufacturer's instructions at Fiocruz, Rondônia.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All nasopharyngeal specimens underwent reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using Allplex 2019-nCoV assay (Seegene) 9 Linea Assigner v.2.1.7 (https://pangolin.cog-uk.io). Blood specimens were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid-specific IgM, IgA using ELISA (IgM+A) from Vircell(Spain) 12 and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG antibodies using Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) from Euroimmun 13 according to the manufacturer's instructions at Fiocruz, Rondônia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active surveillance and early detection of community transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 Mu variant (B.1.621) in the Brazilian Amazon

Oliveira

Silva‐Flannery²,

Silva³

et al. 2022

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through active surveillance and contact tracing from outpatients, we aimed to identify and characterize SARS‐CoV‐2 variants circulating in Porto Velho‐Rondônia, a city in the Brazilian Amazon. As part of a prospective cohort, we gathered information from 2,506 individuals among COVID‐19 patients and household contacts. Epidemiological data, nasopharyngeal swabs, and blood samples were collected from all participants. Nasopharyngeal swabs were tested for antigen rapid diagnostic test and reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) followed by genomic sequencing. Blood samples underwent ELISA testing for IgA, IgG, and IgM antibody levels. From 757 specimens sequenced, three were identified as Mu variant, none of the individuals carrying this variant had a travel history in the previous 15 days before diagnosis. One case was asymptomatic and two presented mild symptoms. Two infected individuals from different households caring viruses with additional amino acid substitutions ORF7a P45L and ORF1a T1055A compared to the Mu virus reference sequence. One patient presented IgG levels. Our results highlight that genomic surveillance for SARS‐CoV‐2 variants can assist in detecting the emergency of SARS‐CoV‐2 variants in the community, before its identification in other parts of the country.

show abstract

“…The serology of SARS‐CoV‐2, in addition to being a complementary tool in the diagnosis (Fuentes et al, 2021 ), allows knowing the immune status of the patient after natural infection or after vaccination (Okba et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of humoral immune response to two mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) in healthcare workers fully vaccinated with and without a history of previous infection

Serrano

Algarate

Herrero-Cortina

et al. 2022

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Presence of anti‐S1 region of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein was analysed, at two and eight months, in 477 immunocompetent healthcare workers in Zaragoza, Spain, vaccinated with mRNA‐1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer). Methods and results Antibody analysis was performed with Alinity i System (Abbott). At 2 months, 100% of vaccinated had anti‐S1 IgG (mean = 13,285 AU ml −1 ). This value was significantly higher with Moderna (18,192 AU ml −1 ) than with Pfizer (10,441 AU ml −1 ). The mean value of anti‐S1 IgG after vaccination was significantly higher in patients with than without previous infection (18,539 vs. 7919 AU ml −1 ); in both groups was significantly higher with Moderna than with Pfizer (21,881 vs. 15,733 AU ml −1 and 11,949 vs. 6387 AU ml −1 ), respectively. At 8 months, 100% of patients were IgG positive, with higher levels with Moderna than with Pfizer. Nevertheless, in ensemble of cases, a mean decrease of antibody levels of 11,025 AU ml −1 was observed. Conclusion At 2 and 8 months after vaccination, IgG response persists with both vaccines but with important decrease which suggests the need for revaccination. Significance and impact of study The study contributes to know the immune status after vaccination with two of more used anti‐SARS‐CoV ‐2 vaccines. This knowledge is important for establishing the best vaccination strategy

show abstract

Antibody response in patients admitted to the hospital with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from a multicenter study across Spain

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Agreement between commercially available ELISA and in-house Luminex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays

Agreement between commercially available ELISA and in-house Luminex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays

Active surveillance and early detection of community transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 Mu variant (B.1.621) in the Brazilian Amazon

Assessment of humoral immune response to two mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer) in healthcare workers fully vaccinated with and without a history of previous infection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About