SARS-CoV-2 is considered a global emergency, resulting in an exacerbated crisis in the health public in the world. Although there are advances in vaccine development, it is still not available for many countries. On the other hand, an immunological response that mediates protective immunity or indicates that predict disease outcome in SARS-CoV-2 infection remains undefined. This work aimed to assess the antibody levels, avidity, and subclasses of IgG to RBD protein, in symptomatic patients with severe and mild forms of COVID-19 in Brazil using an adapted in-house RBD-IgG ELISA. The RDB IgG-ELISA showed 100% of specificity and 94.3% of sensibility on detecting antibodies in the sera of hospitalized patients. Patients who presented severe COVID-19 had higher anti-RBD IgG levels compared to patients with mild disease. Additionally, most patients analyzed displayed low antibody avidity, with 64.4% of the samples of patients who recovered from the disease and 84.6% of those who died in this avidity range. Our data also reveals an increase of IgG1 and IgG3 levels since the 8th day after symptoms onset, while IgG4 levels maintained less detectable during the study period. Surprisingly, patients who died during 8-14 and 15-21 days also showed higher anti-RBD IgG4 levels in comparison with the recovered (P < 0.05), suggesting that some life-threatening patients can elicit IgG4 to RBD antibody response in the first weeks of symptoms onset. Our findings constitute the effort to clarify IgG antibodies' kinetics, avidity, and subclasses against SARS-CoV-2 RDB in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 in Brazil, highlighting the importance of IgG antibody avidity in association with IgG4 detection as tool laboratory in the follow-up of hospitalized patients with more significant potential for life-threatening.

Introduction: Due to urgency and demand of a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, numerous Sars-CoV-2 immunoassays have been rapidly developed. Objective: This study aimed at assessing the performance of rapid Sars-CoV-2 antibody test in comparison to high-throughput serological assays. Methods: A total of 86 serum samples were evaluated in the three assays: a lateral flow immunoassay -Wondfo Sars-CoV-2 Antibody Test (WRT) -and two chemiluminescence immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-Sars-CoV-2 (ECLIA), and Sars-CoV-2 IgG (CMIA-IgG). Results: The estimated diagnostic sensitivities of serological tests in the evaluation of serum samples from the epidemiological survey were: WRT 59% [95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4%-72.9%], ECLIA 66.7% (51%-79.4%), and CMIA-IgG 61.5% (47.1%-73%). Meanwhile, the estimated diagnostic specificity was for WRT 78.7% (95% CI 65.1%-88%), ECLIA 72.3% (58.2%-83.1%), and CMIA-IgG 76.6% (74%-95.5%). The sensitivity and specificity values were lower than manufacturers' claimed. Although 16.2% (14/86) of serological results were discordant among the three Sars-CoV-2 serological assays, the degree of agreement by the kappa index was adequate: WRT/CMIA-IgG [0.757 (95% CI 0.615-0.899)], WRT/ECLIA [0.715 (0.565-0.864)], and ECLIA/CMIA-IgG [0.858 (0.748-0.968)]. Conclusion: The serological testing may be a useful diagnostic tool, which reinforces its careful evaluation, and, as well as the correct time to use it.