ABSTRACT
Background The introduction of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection needs precise instruments for quality control of vaccination procedure, detection of poor immunological response and estimation of the achieved protection against the disease but also against infection and being infective.
Objective To compare new automated SARS-CoV 2 Ig assay performance characteristics from the automated Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche) with the new LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (DiaSorin) assay and their compatibility with WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin. In the context of the mass vaccination programs, we undertook the investigation of clinical utility of the two new automated assays by analyzing results in samples collected at specified time points relative to the vaccination time.
Design Prospective assay evaluation.
Patients Medical staff undergoing vaccination with BioNTech/Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine between January and March 2021 (n = 79) and referred for serum antiSARS-CoV 2 Ig testing prior to vaccination, 21 days after the first dose, and 8, 14 and 30 days after the second dose. Main Outcome Measure(s): Serum antibody levels measured with Roche and DiaSorin assays.
Results Intra-assay imprecision was low with DiaSorin at 3.46%; and Roche at 2.5%. The Passing-Bablok regression equation for all tested samples was y (DiaSorin) = 184.61 + (1.03 x Roche) and the correlation between the assays (r=0.587; p < 0.0001).
Conclusions The novel automated assays exhibit strong concordance in calibration, with assay-specific interpretation required for routine clinical use. These results highlight the need for further work on the international standard of measurement of SARS-CoV 2 Ig especially in era of vaccination. The serological assays can be useful to detect IgG/IgM antibodies, to assess the degree of immunization, to trace the contacts, and to support the decision to readmit people to work or vaccinate them again. However, the values generated by both assays can be markedly different, and assay-specific and personalized interpretation is required.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study has been financed by Invicta Research and Development Center
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ethical approval was received from the Ethics Committee at the Gdansk Regional Medical Board (No KB - 4/21)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
N/A
