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.

Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 assays for evaluation of natural viral infection / Gaeta, Aurelia; Angeloni, Antonio; Napoli, Anna; Pucci, Beatrice; Cinti, Lilia; Roberto, Piergiorgio; Colaiacovo, Flavia; Berardelli, Elena; Farina, Antonella; Antonelli, Guido; Anastasi, Emanuela. - In: JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS. - ISSN 0022-1759. - 518:(2023). [10.1016/j.jim.2023.113486]

Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 assays for evaluation of natural viral infection

Aurelia Gaeta
Primo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
Antonio Angeloni
Secondo
Supervision
;
Anna Napoli
Resources
;
Beatrice Pucci
Formal Analysis
;
Lilia Cinti
Methodology
;
Roberto Piergiorgio
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Flavia Colaiacovo
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
Elena Berardelli
Validation
;
Antonella Farina
Writing – Review & Editing
;
Guido Antonelli
Penultimo
Supervision
;
Emanuela Anastasi
Ultimo
Conceptualization
2023

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.
2023
anti-N ab; diagnostic test; anti SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; ECLIA; ELISA; immunochromatography
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Anti-N SARS-CoV-2 assays for evaluation of natural viral infection / Gaeta, Aurelia; Angeloni, Antonio; Napoli, Anna; Pucci, Beatrice; Cinti, Lilia; Roberto, Piergiorgio; Colaiacovo, Flavia; Berardelli, Elena; Farina, Antonella; Antonelli, Guido; Anastasi, Emanuela. - In: JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGICAL METHODS. - ISSN 0022-1759. - 518:(2023). [10.1016/j.jim.2023.113486]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Gaeta_Anti-N SARS_2023.pdf

accesso aperto

Note: OPEN ACCESS: Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 590.86 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
590.86 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1679433
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact