ELISAs and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used for diagnosing dengue virus (DENV) infection. Using 138 single blood samples, we compared the ability to detect non-structural (NS)-1 antigen and anti-DENV IgM/IgG antibodies among (1) DENV Detect NS1 ELISA, DENV Detect IgM capture ELISA and DENV Detect IgG ELISA (InBios International, Inc.); (2) Anti-Dengue virus IgM Human ELISA and Anti-Dengue virus IgG Human ELISA (Abcam); (3) Dengue virus NS1 ELISA, Anti-Dengue virus ELISA (IgM) and Anti-Dengue virus ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun); (4) Asan Easy Test Dengue NS1 Ag 100 and Asan Easy Test Dengue IgG/IgM (Asan Pharm); (5) SD BIOLINE Dengue Duo (Standard Diagnostics); and (6) Ichroma Dengue NS1 and Ichroma Dengue IgG/IgM (Boditech Med). For NS1 antigen detection, InBios and Euroimmun showed higher sensitivities (100%) than the RDTs (42.9–64.3%). All tests demonstrated variable sensitivities for IgM (38.1–90.5%) and IgG (65.7–100.0%). InBios and Boditech Med demonstrated higher sensitivity (95.6% and 88.2%, respectively) than the other tests for combined NS1 antigen and IgM antibody. Five NS1 antigen tests had good agreement (92.8–98.6%) without showing positivity for chikungunya. However, all IgG tests demonstrated potential false-positivity with variable ranges. Clinical laboratories should note performance variations across tests and potential cross-reactivity.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays have high clinical utility in managing the pandemic. We compared antibody responses and seroconversion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients using different immunoassays.Methods: We evaluated 12 commercial immunoassays, including three automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (Abbott, Roche, and Siemens), three enzyme immunoassays (Bio-Rad, Euroimmun, and Vircell), five lateral flow immunoassays (Boditech Med, SD biosensor, PCL, Sugentech, and Rapigen), and one surrogate neutralizing antibody assay (GenScript) in sequential samples from 49 COVID-19 patients and 10 seroconversion panels.Results: The positive percent agreement (PPA) of assays for a COVID-19 diagnosis ranged from 84.0% to 98.5% for all samples ( > 14 days after symptom onset), with IgM or IgA assays showing higher PPAs. Seroconversion responses varied across the assay type and disease severity. Assays targeting the spike or receptor-binding domain protein showed a tendency for early seroconversion detection and higher index values in patients with severe disease. Index values from SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody assays (three automated assays, one LFIA, and three EIAs) showed moderate to strong correlations with the neutralizing antibody percentage (r = 0.517-0.874), and stronger correlations in patients with severe disease and in assays targeting spike protein. Agreement among the 12 assays was good (74.3%-96.4%) for detecting IgG or total antibodies. Conclusions: Positivity rates and seroconversion of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies vary depending on the assay kits, disease severity, and antigen target. This study contributes to a better understanding of antibody response in symptomatic COVID-19 patients using currently available assays.

Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays against the spike (S) protein are useful for monitoring immune response after infection or vaccination. We compared the results of three chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) (Abbott, Roche, Siemens) and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT, GenScript) using 191 sequential samples from 32 COVID-19 patients. All assays detected >90% of samples collected 14 days after symptom onset (Abbott 97.4%, Roche 96.2%, Siemens 92.3%, and GenScript 96.2%), and overall agreement among the four assays was 91.1% to 96.3%. When we assessed time-course antibody levels, the Abbott and Siemens assays showed higher levels in patients with severe disease (p < 0.05). Antibody levels from the three CLIAs were correlated (r = 0.763–0.885). However, Passing–Bablok regression analysis showed significant proportional differences between assays and converting results to binding antibody units (BAU)/mL still showed substantial bias. CLIAs had good performance in predicting sVNT positivity (Area Under the Curve (AUC), 0.959–0.987), with Abbott having the highest AUC value (p < 0.05). SARS-CoV-2 S protein antibody levels as assessed by the CLIAs were not interchangeable, but showed reliable performance for predicting sVNT results. Further standardization and harmonization of immunoassays might be helpful in monitoring immune status after COVID-19 infection or vaccination.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection has a significant impact in patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We investigated natural killer (NK) cell reconstitution and cytotoxic/cytokine production in controlling CMV infection, especially severe CMV disease in HSCT patients. Fifty-eight patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who received allo-HSCT were included. We monitored NK reconstitution and NK function at baseline, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 days after HSCT, and compared the results in recipients stratified on post-HSCT CMV reactivation (n = 23), non-reactivation (n = 24) versus CMV disease (n = 11) groups. The CMV disease group had a significantly delayed recovery of CD56dim NK cells and expansion of FcRγ-CD3ζ+NK cells started post-HSCT 150 days. Sequential results of NK cytotoxicity, NK cell-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (NK-ADCC), and NK-Interferon-gamma (NK-IFNγ) production for 180 days demonstrated delayed recovery and decreased levels in the CMV disease group compared with the other groups. The results within 1 month after CMV viremia also showed a significant decrease in NK function in the CMV disease group compared to the CMV reactivation group. It suggests that NK cells’ maturation and cytotoxic/IFNγ production contributes to CMV protection, thereby revealing the NK phenotype and functional NK monitoring as a biomarker for CMV risk prediction, especially CMV disease.

Background/Aims: To investigate if BK virus (BKV)-specific T cell immunity measured by an interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay can predict the outcome of BK virus infection in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Methods: We included 68 KTRs with different viremia status (no viremia [n = 17], BK viremia [n = 27], and cleared viremia [n = 24]) and 44 healthy controls (HCs). The BK viremia group was divided into controller (< 3 months) and noncontroller (> 3 months) according to sustained duration of BKV infection. We compared BKV-ELISPOT results against five BKV peptides (large tumor antigen [LT], St, VP1-3). Results: BKV-ELISPOT results were higher in three KTRs groups with different BKV infection status than the HCs group (p < 0.05). In KTR groups, they were higher in cleared viremia group than no viremia or BK viremia group. Within the BK viremia group, controller group had higher LT-ELISPOT results compared to noncontroller group (p = 0.032). Also, KTRs without BK virus-associated nephropathy (BKVN) had higher LT, St, VP1, and VP2-ELISPOT results than those with BKVN (p < 0.05). Conclusions: BKV-ELISPOT assay may be effective in predicting clinical outcomes of BKV infection in terms of clearance of BK virus and development of BKVN.