SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing for estimating COVID-19 prevalence in the population

Vogl, Thomas; Leviatan, Sigal; Segal, Eran

doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100191

Cited by 38 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 86 publications

(97 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wide window of time within which antibodies may be detected, ranging from 1 to 2 weeks of infection when seroconversion occurs to several months after the infection has been resolved, offers a unique advantage for antibody testing over NAT. Because of the high incidence of asymptomatic cases, antibody testing, when carried out in large scale, can provide valuable and accurate information about the spread of the infection at the population level and the true infection fatality rate ( 8 , 9 ). Importantly, with the advent of several effective vaccines against the virus and the rapid rollout of the vaccination program around the world, priorities are being shifted from containment to monitoring the immediate and longitudinal effects of the vaccines on the immune system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been developed to date, which include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays (LFAs; refs. 1 , 8 ). The sensitivity and specificity of different ELISA kits may vary ( 10 ), but they are generally considered sufficient for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epitope-specific antibody responses differentiate COVID-19 outcomes and variants of concern

Voss¹,

Esmail²,

Liu³

et al. 2021

JCI Insight

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND. The role of humoral immunity in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not fully understood owing, in large part, to the complexity of antibodies produced in response to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is a pressing need for serology tests to assess patient-specific antibody response and predict clinical outcome. METHODS. Using SARS-CoV-2 proteome and peptide microarrays, we screened 146 COVID-19 patients plasma samples to identify antigens and epitopes. This enabled us to develop a master epitope array and an epitope-specific agglutination assay to gauge antibody responses systematically and with high resolution. RESULTS. We identified linear epitopes from the Spike (S) and Nucleocapsid (N) protein and showed that the epitopes enabled higher resolution antibody profiling than the S or N protein antigen. Specifically, we found that antibody responses to the S(811-825), S(881-895) and N(156-170) epitopes negatively or positively correlated with clinical severity or patient survival. Moreover, we found that the P681H and S235F mutations associated with the coronavirus variant of concern B.1.1.7 altered the specificity of the corresponding epitopes. CONCLUSIONS. Epitope-resolved antibody testing not only affords a high-resolution alternativeto conventional immunoassays to delineate the complex humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate between neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies, it may potentially be used to predict clinical outcome. The epitope peptides can be readily modified to detect antibodies against variants of concern (VOC) in both the peptide array and latex agglutination formats.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epitope-specific antibody responses differentiate COVID-19 outcomes and variants of concern

Voss¹,

Esmail²,

Liu³

et al. 2021

JCI Insight

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main role of serology testing has been to estimate COVID-19 prevalence in the population to guide public health and economic policies. 8 …”

Section: Immunoassaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

The battle of testing in COVID-19: the secrets of victory against the virus

Kelleher¹

2021

Cardiovascular Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the justifications for use of this metric often reference a WHO recommendation intended to be applied only in a sentinel surveillance context [15]), rather than in the more general context in which it has been frequently implemented. As measures of prevalence, test positivity and reported cases, although readily available and well-understood by public health officials, are very likely to provide biased estimates of disease transmission/prevalence and seroprevalence [1,16,17]). Hospitalization and death rates are also similarly readily available, but tend to lag infections by several weeks and only reflect the most severe outcomes [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using test positivity and reported case rates to estimate state-level COVID-19 prevalence and seroprevalence in the United States

Chiu

Ndeffo-Mbah

2021

PLoS Comput Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate estimates of infection prevalence and seroprevalence are essential for evaluating and informing public health responses and vaccination coverage needed to address the ongoing spread of COVID-19 in each United States (U.S.) state. However, reliable, timely data based on representative population sampling are unavailable, and reported case and test positivity rates are highly biased. A simple data-driven Bayesian semi-empirical modeling framework was developed and used to evaluate state-level prevalence and seroprevalence of COVID-19 using daily reported cases and test positivity ratios. The model was calibrated to and validated using published state-wide seroprevalence data, and further compared against two independent data-driven mathematical models. The prevalence of undiagnosed COVID-19 infections is found to be well-approximated by a geometrically weighted average of the positivity rate and the reported case rate. Our model accurately fits state-level seroprevalence data from across the U.S. Prevalence estimates of our semi-empirical model compare favorably to those from two data-driven epidemiological models. As of December 31, 2020, we estimate nation-wide a prevalence of 1.4% [Credible Interval (CrI): 1.0%-1.9%] and a seroprevalence of 13.2% [CrI: 12.3%-14.2%], with state-level prevalence ranging from 0.2% [CrI: 0.1%-0.3%] in Hawaii to 2.8% [CrI: 1.8%-4.1%] in Tennessee, and seroprevalence from 1.5% [CrI: 1.2%-2.0%] in Vermont to 23% [CrI: 20%-28%] in New York. Cumulatively, reported cases correspond to only one third of actual infections. The use of this simple and easy-to-communicate approach to estimating COVID-19 prevalence and seroprevalence will improve the ability to make public health decisions that effectively respond to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing for estimating COVID-19 prevalence in the population

Cited by 38 publications

References 86 publications

Epitope-specific antibody responses differentiate COVID-19 outcomes and variants of concern

Epitope-specific antibody responses differentiate COVID-19 outcomes and variants of concern

The battle of testing in COVID-19: the secrets of victory against the virus

Using test positivity and reported case rates to estimate state-level COVID-19 prevalence and seroprevalence in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About