• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

J Immunol Methods . Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 assays for evaluation of natural viral infection

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
J Immunol Methods


. 2023 May 6;113486.
doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2023.113486. Online ahead of print. Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 assays for evaluation of natural viral infection

Aurelia Gaeta[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Antonio Angeloni[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Anna Napoli[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Beatrice Pucci[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Lilia Cinti[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Piergiorgio Roberto[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Flavia Colaiacovo[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Elena Berardelli[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Antonella Farina[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Guido Antonelli[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Emanuela Anastasi[SUP] 4 [/SUP]



Affiliations
Abstract

Background: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic, required the development of different diagnostic tests. While reverse transcriptase real-time PCR (RT-PCR) remains the first-line test of choice in acute infection diagnosis, anti-N antibodies serological assays provide a valuable tool to differentiate natural SARS-CoV-2 immunological response from that induced by vaccination, thus the goal of our study was to evaluate three serological tests agreement for these antibodies detection.
Methods: Three anti-N different tests were examined in 74 sera from patients referred or not COVID infection: immunochromatographic rapid test (Panbio™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device Abbott, Germany), ELISA kit (NovaLisa® SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM NovaTech Immunodiagnostic GmbH, Germany) and ECLIA immunoassay (Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Roche Diagnostics, Manheim, Germany).
Results: Qualitative comparison of the three analytical methods revealed a moderate agreement between ECLIA immunoassay and immunochromatographic rapid test (Cohen kappa coefficient κ = 0.564). Correlation analysis indicated weak positive correlation between total Ig (IgT) detected by ECLIA immunoassay and IgG by ELISA test (p < 0.0001), the analysis of ECLIA IgT and IgM ELISA detected, showed no statistical correlation.
Conclusion: Comparison between of three analytical systems available for anti-N SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies showed a general agreement when compared to detect total and G class immunoglobulins, while doubtful or discordant results have been highlighted for IgT and IgM class. Anyway, all the tests examined provide reliable results to assess the serological status of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.

Keywords: Anti SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; ECLIA; ELISA; Immunochromatography.

 
Back
Top Bottom