Abstract
SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM antibodies wane during the first three months after infection and IgG antibody levels decline. This may limit the ability of antibody tests to identify previous SARS CoV-2 infection at later time points. To examine if the sensitivity of antibody tests falls off, we compared the sensitivity of two nucleoprotein-based antibody tests, the Roche Elecsis II Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and three glycoprotein-based tests, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Siemens Atellica IM COV2T and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 assay with 56 sera obtained 6-8 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of the Roche, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Siemens antibody assays was 94.6 % (95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1-98.9 %), 98.2 % (95% CI: 90.4-99.9 %) and 100 % (95% CI: 93.6-100 %). The sensitivity of the N-based Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and the glycoprotein-based Euroimmun ELISA was 48.2 % (95% CI: 34.7-62.0 %) and 83.9 % (95% CI: 71.7-92.4 %). The nucleoprotein-based Roche and the glycoprotein-based Abbott RBD and Siemens tests were more sensitive than the N-based Abbott and the Euroimmun antibody tests (p=0.0001 to p=0.039). The N-based Abbott antibody test was less sensitive 6-8 months than 4-10 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.0002). The findings show that most SARS CoV-2 antibody assays correctly identified previous infection 6-8 months after infection. The sensitivity of pan-Ig antibody tests was not reduced at 6-8 months when IgM antibodies have usually disappeared. However, one of the nucleoprotein-based antibody tests significantly lost sensitivity over time.
Highlights
Most antibody tests correctly identified SARS CoV-2 infection 6-8 months after infection
The sensitivity of the antibody tests was 48.2-100 %
The three tests with the highest sensitivity (94.6-100 %) were the N-based Roche and the RBD-based Abbott and Siemens assays
The N-based Abbott IgG CMIA was significantly less sensitive 6-8 months than 4-10 weeks after infection (p = 0.0002)
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was supported by the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Leipzig and funded in part by grant no. 1-0421/31/40-2020/26882 from the Free State of Saxony and grant no. JA 662/22-1 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
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 study was approved by the Local Ethics Commission at the Medical Faculty at the University of Leipzig (ethical vote 147/20-ek)
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
The data referred to in the manuscript will be made accessible upon request
1Abbreviations
- SARS-CoV-2
- Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2
- COVID-19
- Corona-virus disease 2019
- N
- nucleoprotein
- RBD
- receptor binding domain
- ELISA
- enzyme immunoassay
- CMIA
- chemiluminescence microparticle immuno-assay
- MIA
- microparticle immunoassay
- ECLIA
- electrochemiluminescence immunoassay