SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays in serial samples reveal earlier seroconversion in acutely ill COVID-19 patients developing ARDS

  1. Marie-Luise Buchholtz
  2. Florian M. Arend
  3. Peter Eichhorn
  4. Michael Weigand
  5. Alisa Kleinhempel
  6. Kurt Häusler
  7. Mathias Bruegel
  8. Lesca M. Holdt
  9. Daniel Teupser

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has been suggested for (1) screening populations for disease prevalence, (2) diagnostics, and (3) guiding therapeutic applications. Here, we conducted a detailed clinical evaluation of four Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in samples from acutely ill COVID-19 patients and in two negative cohorts.

Methods

443 serum specimens from serial sampling of 29 COVID-19 patients were used to determine clinical sensitivities. Patients were stratified for the presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Individual serum specimens from a pre-COVID-19 cohort of 238 healthy subjects and from a PCR-negative clinical cohort of 257 patients were used to determine clinical specificities. All samples were measured side-by-side with the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgG), Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgA) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun AG, Lübeck, Germany) and the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA (Roche Diagnostics International, Rotkreuz, Switzerland).

Results

Median seroconversion occurred earlier in ARDS patients (8–9 days) than in non-ARDS patients (11–17 days), except for EUR N-IgG. Rates of positivity and mean signal ratios in the ARDS group were significantly higher than in the non-ARDS group. Sensitivities between the four tested immunoassays were equivalent. In the set of negative samples, the specificity of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgA) was lower (93.9%) compared to all other assays (≥98.8%) and the specificity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (IgG) was lower (98.8%) than that of Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%).

Conclusions

Serial sampling in COVID-19 patients revealed earlier seroconversion and higher signal ratios of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as a potential risk marker for the development of ARDS, suggesting a utility for antibody testing in acutely diseased patients.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0251587
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.15.21250916: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.15.21250916v2 on medRxiv
  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.15.21250916v1 on medRxiv