SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and Profiles Among Convalescents in Sichuan Province, China

Zhou, Ling; Cheng, Li; Yang, Huiping; Hu, Yuan; Pan, Ming; Cheng, Xiuwei; Xiao, Chongkun; Su, Xin; Zhu, Yuanfang; Xu, Jianan; Jianxiang, Tang; Du, Xu; Huanwen, Peng; Chen, Xiao; Huang, Tao; Liao, Hang; Xian, Deqiang; Wang, HaoZhou; Liu, Wenwu; Zhou, Ping; Zhang, Zhengdong; Liu, Juan; Wu, Xianping; Zhang, Tao

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.716483

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this purpose, different investigations have conducted several seroepidemiological surveys worldwide to measure the seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. These studies have demonstrated the importance of the humoral immune response for the elimination of viral infection, and the important role of understanding the dynamics of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, which help not only in assessing immunological levels and predicting potential immune protection, but also in the development of vaccine and immune therapy strategies [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses 5 Months Post Complete Vaccination of Moroccan Healthcare Workers

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data about the duration of antibodies after vaccination show that the protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection begins to decline over time. This study aims to determine anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S IgG levels in healthcare workers five months after the second vaccination dose. We collected samples from 82 participants who were fully vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BBIBP-CorV. We assessed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies using a Euroimmun ELISA and an Abbott Architect ™ SARS-CoV-2 IgG test. Of the 82 participants, 65.85% were seropositive for IgG using ELISA, and 86.59% were positive for IgG according to the Abbott Architect ™ test. Individuals vaccinated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine had a median anti-S1 antibody level of 1.810 AU/mL [interquartile range (IQR), 1.080–3.7340] and 171.7 AU/mL [79.9–684.6] according to the Euroimmun ELISA and Abbott Architect test, respectively. These tests indicated that people vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV had a median anti-S1 antibody level of 1.840 AU/mL [0.810–2.960] and 126.7 AU/mL [54.9–474.3], respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the positivity rates of the vaccinated individuals, either for gender or for age. In addition, we found no significant difference between the two vaccines. Our study provides information on the longevity of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in people at least five months after vaccination.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses 5 Months Post Complete Vaccination of Moroccan Healthcare Workers

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are roles -albeit with some limitations-for the use of antibody testing. Currently, these tests are commonly used as a tool for seroprevalence studies [19][20][21], contributing to the understanding of the immune response to the virus [22]. Even with the advent of vaccines, depending on the vaccine platform used, antibody testing can also be used to distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals [23][24][25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic performance of four lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population

Calderon-Flores

Caceres-Cardenas

Alí

et al. 2023

PLOS Glob Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serological assays have been used in seroprevalence studies to inform the dynamics of COVID-19. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests are a very practical technology to use for this objective; however, one of their challenges may be variable diagnostic performance. Given the numerous available LFIA tests, evaluation of their accuracy is critical before real-world implementation. We performed a retrospective diagnostic evaluation study to independently determine the diagnostic accuracy of 4 different antibody-detection LFIA tests: Now Check (Bionote), CareStart (Access bio), Covid-19 BSS (Biosynex) and OnSite (CTK Biotech). The sample panel was comprised of specimens collected and stored in biobanks; specifically, specimens that were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 collected at various times throughout the COVID-19 disease course and those that were collected before the pandemic, during 2018 or earlier, from individuals with upper respiratory symptoms but were negative for tuberculosis. Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was analyzed overall, and subset across individual antibody isotypes, and days from symptoms onset. A very high specificity (98% - 100%) was found for all four tests. Overall sensitivity was variable, ranging from 29% [95% CI: 21%-39%] to 64% [95% CI: 54%-73%]. When considering detection of IgM only, the highest sensitivity was 42% [95% CI: 32%-52%], compared to 57% [95% CI: 47%-66%] for IgG only. When the analysis was restricted to at least 15 days since symptom onset, across any isotype, the sensitivity reached 90% for all four brands. All four LFIA tests proved effective for identifying COVID-19 antibodies when two conditions were met: 1) at least 15 days have elapsed since symptom onset and 2) a sample is considered positive when either IgM or IgG is present. With these considerations, the use of this assays could help in seroprevalence studies or further exploration of its potential uses.

show abstract

Diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population

Calderon-Flores

Caceres-Cardenas

Alí

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Serological assays have been used in seroprevalence studies to inform the dynamics of COVID-19. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests are a very practical technology to use for this objective; however, one of their challenges may be variable diagnostic performance. Given the numerous available LFIA tests, evaluation of their accuracy is critical before real-world implementation. Methods We performed a retrospective diagnostic evaluation study to independently determine the diagnostic accuracy of 4 different antibody-detection LFIA tests. The sample panel was comprised of specimens collected and stored in biobanks; specifically, specimens that were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 collected at various times throughout the COVID-19 disease course and those that were collected before the pandemic, during 2018 or earlier, from individuals with upper respiratory symptoms but were negative for tuberculosis. Clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) was analyzed overall, and subset across individual antibody isotypes, and days from symptoms onset. Results A very high specificity (98% - 100%) was found for all four tests. Overall sensitivity was variable, ranging from 29% [95% CI: 21%-39%] to 64% [95% CI: 54%-73%]. When considering detection of IgM only, the highest sensitivity was 42% [95% CI: 32%-52%], compared to 57% [95% CI: 47%-66%] for IgG only. When the analysis was restricted to at least 15 days since symptom onset, across any isotype, the sensitivity reached 90% for all four brands. Conclusion All four LFIA tests proved effective for identifying COVID-19 antibodies when two conditions were met: 1) at least 15 days have elapsed since symptom onset and 2) a sample is considered positive when either IgM or IgG is present. With these considerations, the use of this assays could help in seroprevalence studies or further exploration of its potential uses.

show abstract

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and Profiles Among Convalescents in Sichuan Province, China

Cited by 3 publications

References 40 publications

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses 5 Months Post Complete Vaccination of Moroccan Healthcare Workers

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses 5 Months Post Complete Vaccination of Moroccan Healthcare Workers

Diagnostic performance of four lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population

Diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunoassays for COVID-19 antibodies in Peruvian population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About