Abstract:This work showed that the comparability of apparently standardized SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays (Roche, Abbott; both given in BAU/mL) after vaccination depends on the time of blood withdrawal. Initially (3 weeks after the first dose AZD1222), there were 3 times higher values in the Abbott assay, but this relationship inversed before boosting (11 weeks after the first dose) with Roche 2 times greater than Abbott.
“…Differentiating high- and low-affinity antibodies may have significant clinical implications, since lower serum IgG avidity is likely associated with higher risk of infection [33] . Our study also showed that the correlation of antibodies between two assays became stronger with time following the vaccination, which is consistent with the results from a previous study [27] . Factors other than the affinity/avidity maturation of antibodies that may affect the kinetics of antibody following vaccination require further evaluation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…However, at 6 months, few participants met the criterion for seroprotection according to the Architect assay, while 43% of participants met the criterion according to the Elecsys assay. A previous study measuring anti-RBD antibody titers after vaccination with a viral-vector vaccine also showed differences in kinetics between titers measured by the Architect assay and those measured by the Elecsys assay [27] . These results suggest that it is not appropriate to determine the timing of booster vaccination based on the results of only one type of immunoassay.…”
“…Differentiating high- and low-affinity antibodies may have significant clinical implications, since lower serum IgG avidity is likely associated with higher risk of infection [33] . Our study also showed that the correlation of antibodies between two assays became stronger with time following the vaccination, which is consistent with the results from a previous study [27] . Factors other than the affinity/avidity maturation of antibodies that may affect the kinetics of antibody following vaccination require further evaluation.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…However, at 6 months, few participants met the criterion for seroprotection according to the Architect assay, while 43% of participants met the criterion according to the Elecsys assay. A previous study measuring anti-RBD antibody titers after vaccination with a viral-vector vaccine also showed differences in kinetics between titers measured by the Architect assay and those measured by the Elecsys assay [27] . These results suggest that it is not appropriate to determine the timing of booster vaccination based on the results of only one type of immunoassay.…”
“…In contrast, our method highly correlated with the Abbott assay ( R 2 = 0.936). Since the antibody detection by Abbott and Roche assays has different dynamic ranges, the correlation depends on the sampling time of blood [ 3 ]. Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All other currently authorized tests are qualitative or semi-quantitative [2]. Antibody-testing technologies are mainly categorized into (a) single-use lateral flow tests (immunochromatography), where the presence of antibodies is demonstrated by a color change on a paper strip, and (b) laboratory-based immunoassays that allow the processing of many specimens simultaneously [3,4]. In addition, some microarray systems have been developed for research purposes [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].…”
A rapid automatic quantitative diagnostic system for multiple SARS-CoV-2 mutant protein-specific antibodies was developed using a microarray with photoreactive polymers. Two types of photoreactive polymers, phenylazide and polyoxyethylene, were prepared. The polymers were coated on a plastic plate. Aqueous solutions of mutant virus proteins were microspotted on the coated plate and immobilized by photoirradiation. Virus-specific IgG in the serum or blood was automatically assayed using an instrument that we developed for pipetting, reagent stirring, and washing. The results highly correlated with those of the conventional enzyme-linked immunoassay or immunochromatography. This system was successfully used to test the sera or blood from the patients recovered from the infection and the vaccinated individuals. The recovered individuals had antibodies against the nucleoprotein, in contrast to the vaccinated individuals. The amount of antibodies produced decreased with an increase in virus mutation. Blood collected from the fingertip (5 μL) and a test period of 8 min were sufficient conditions for conducting multiple antibody assays. We believe that our system would facilitate rapid and quantitative automatic assays and aid in the diagnosis of various viral infectious diseases and assessment of the immune status for clinical applications.
This paper provides a comprehensive summary of evidence to explore and position the role of serology testing in the context of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) immunization and policy response in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The document builds on a review of academic literature and existing policies followed by a process of discussion, validation, and feedback by a group of six experts. Six countries and territories—Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Taiwan—were sampled to highlight the differing contexts and scenarios in the region. The review includes an overview of (1) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the emergence of Variants of Concern (VOCs), especially Omicron, (2) the introduction of immunization, (3) the available testing options and potential use of serology testing, (4) the landscape of guidelines and recommendations for their use, and (5) the barriers and challenges to implementing serology testing as a tool to support COVID-19 immunization. Based on the findings, the co-authors propose a set of recommendations to resolve knowledge gaps, to include the use of serology testing as part of the policy response, and to ensure adequate means of implementation. This paper’s target audience includes members of the academic community, medical societies, health providers and practitioners, and decision-makers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
