Medical Affairs and Innovation, Héma-Québec, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
Division of Microbiology, Clinical Laboratory Medicine Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Canada.
Vox Sang. 2024 Jun;119(6):533-540. doi: 10.1111/vox.13625. Epub 2024 Apr 5.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serosurveys are typically analysed by applying a fixed threshold for seropositivity ('conventional approach'). However, this approach underestimates the seroprevalence of anti-nucleocapsid (N) in vaccinated individuals-who often exhibit a difficult-to-detect anti-N response. This limitation is compounded by delays between the onset of infection and sample collection. To address this issue, we compared the performance of four immunoassays using a new analytical approach ('ratio-based approach'), which determines seropositivity based on an increase in anti-N levels.
Two groups of plasma donors and four immunoassays (Elecsys total anti-N, VITROS total anti-N, Architect anti-N Immunoglobulin G (IgG) and in-house total anti-N) were evaluated. First-group donors (N = 145) had one positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test result and had made two plasma donations, including one before and one after the PCR test (median = 27 days post-PCR). Second-group donors (N = 100) had made two plasma donations early in the Omicron wave.
Among first-group donors (97.9% vaccinated), sensitivity estimates ranged from 60.0% to 89.0% with the conventional approach, compared with 94.5% to 98.6% with the ratio-based approach. Among second-group donors, Fleiss's κ ranged from 0.56 to 0.83 with the conventional approach, compared with 0.90 to 1.00 with the ratio-based approach.
With the conventional approach, the sensitivity of four immunoassays-measured in a predominantly vaccinated population based on samples collected ~1 month after a positive test result-fell below regulatory agencies requirement of ≥95%. The ratio-based approach significantly improved the sensitivities and qualitative agreement among immunoassays, to the point where all would meet this requirement.
严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒 2(SARS-CoV-2)血清学调查通常通过应用血清阳性的固定阈值(“传统方法”)进行分析。然而,这种方法低估了接种疫苗个体的核衣壳(N)抗体的血清阳性率——他们通常表现出难以检测到的 N 抗体反应。感染和样本采集之间的时间延迟加剧了这一局限性。为了解决这个问题,我们比较了四种免疫分析方法的性能,使用了一种新的分析方法(“基于比值的方法”),该方法根据 N 水平的升高来确定血清阳性。
评估了两组血浆供体和四种免疫分析(Elecsys 总抗 N、VITROS 总抗 N、Architect 抗 N 免疫球蛋白 G(IgG)和内部总抗 N)。第一组供体(N=145)有一个阳性的 SARS-CoV-2 聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测结果,并进行了两次血浆捐献,包括 PCR 检测之前和之后的一次(中位数=PCR 检测后 27 天)。第二组供体(N=100)在奥密克戎浪潮早期进行了两次血浆捐献。
在第一组供体(97.9%接种疫苗)中,传统方法的敏感性估计值范围为 60.0%至 89.0%,而基于比值的方法为 94.5%至 98.6%。在第二组供体中,传统方法的 Fleiss'κ值范围为 0.56 至 0.83,而基于比值的方法为 0.90 至 1.00。
在传统方法中,在一个主要接种疫苗的人群中,根据在阳性检测结果后约 1 个月采集的样本,四种免疫分析的敏感性均低于监管机构要求的≥95%。基于比值的方法显著提高了免疫分析的敏感性和定性一致性,以至于所有方法都将满足这一要求。