RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Performance estimation of two in-house ELISA assays for COVID-19 surveillance through the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulin isotypes
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.06.10.22276239
DO 10.1101/2022.06.10.22276239
A1 Ramírez-Reveco, Alfredo
A1 Velázquez, Gerardo
A1 Aros, Christopher
A1 Navarrete, Gabriela
A1 Villarroel-Espindola, Franz
A1 Navarrete, Maritza
A1 Fica, Alberto
A1 Plaza, Anita
A1 Castro, Natalia
A1 Verdugo, Claudio
A1 Acosta-Jamett, Gerardo
A1 Verdugo, Cristóbal
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/06/14/2022.06.10.22276239.abstract
AB The main objective of this study was to estimate the performance, under local epidemiological conditions, of two in-house ELISA assays for the combined detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgM, and IgG immunoglobulins. A total of 94 serum samples were used for the assessment, where 44 corresponded to sera collected before the pandemic (free SARS-CoV-2 antibodies), and 50 sera were collected from confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the main public hospital in the city of Valdivia, southern Chile. The Np and RBD proteins were separately used as antigens (Np and RBD ELISA, respectively) to assess their diagnostic performance. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to estimate the optical density (OD) cut-off that maximized the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of the ELISA assays. Np ELISA had a mean Se of 94% (95% CI = 83.5 – 98.8%) and a mean Sp of 100% (95% CI = 92.0 – 100%), with an OD 450 nm positive cut-off value of 0.88. On the other hand, RBD ELISA presented a mean Se of 96% (95% CI = 86.3 – 99.5%) and a mean Sp of 90% (95% CI = 78.3 – 97.5%), with an OD 450 nm positive cut off value of 0.996. Non-significant differences were observed between the Se distributions of Np and RBD ELISAs, but the latter presented a significant lower Sp than Np ELISA. In parallel, collected sera were also analyzed using a commercial lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay (LFCI), to compare the performance of the in-house ELISA assays against a commercial test. The LFCI had a mean sensitivity of 94% (95% CI = 87.4 – 100%) and a mean specificity of 100% (95% CI = 100 – 100%). When compared to Np ELISA, non-significant differences were observed on the performance distributions. Conversely, RBD ELISA had a significant lower Sp than the LFCI. Although, Np ELISA presented a similar performance than the commercial test, this was 2.5 times cheaper than the LFCI assay. Thus, the in-house Np ELISA could be a suitable alternative tool, in resource limited environments, for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting further epidemiological studies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding Statement- CrV - ANID COVID 0585 - Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo del Ministerio de Ciencias de Chile - www.anid.cl - The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Scientific Ethics Committee of the Servicio de Salud Valdivia (SSV), Ministry of Health of Chile, under the resolution SSV Ord.N°187/2020.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI 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).Not ApplicableI 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.Not ApplicableData cannot be shared publicly because of Chilean law. Data disclosure should be requested to Scientific Ethics Committee of the Servicio de Salud Valdivia (SSV), Ministry of Health of Chile