ArticleTransfusion2021
Surrogate test performance for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) for convalescent plasma (CCP): How useful could they be?
Article in Transfusion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- The role of convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulins in the COVID-19 pandemic, including implications for future preparedness.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Distinct receptor binding domain IgG thresholds predict protective host immunity across SARS-CoV-2 variants and time.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Surrogate test performance for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) for convalescent plasma (CCP): How useful could they be?Transfusion · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 high-titer CCP selection is a concern, because neutralizing antibody (nAb) testing requires sophisticated labs and methods. Surrogate tests are an alternative for measuring nAb levels in plasma bags, including those that are pathogen-reduced. STUDY DESIGN/
methodsWe studied a panel consisting of 191 samples from convalescent donors tested by nAb (CPE-VNT), obtained from 180 CCP donations (collection: March 20-January 21) and 11 negative controls, with a total of 80 and 111 serum and plasma samples (71 amotosalen/UV treated), with nAb titers ranging from negative to 10,240. Samples were blindly tested for several surrogates: one anti-RBD, two anti-spike, and four anti-nucleocapsid tests, either isolated or combined to improve their positive predictive values as predictors of the presence of high-titer nAbs, defined as those with titers ≥160.
resultsExcept for combined and anti-IgA/M tests, all isolated surrogate tests showed excellent performance for nAb detection: sensitivity (98.3%-100%), specificity (85.7%-100%), PPV (98.9%-100%), NPV (81.3%-100%), and AUC (0.93-0.96), with a variable decrease in sensitivity and considerably lower specificity when using FDA authorization and concomitant nAb titers ≥160. All surrogates had AUCs that were statistically different from CPE-VNT if nAb≥160, including when using combined, orthogonal approaches.
conclusionsSurrogate tests (isolated or in combination) have an indirect good performance in detecting the presence of nAb, with lower sensitivity and specificity when high nAb titer samples are used, possibly accepting a considerable number of donors whose nAb titers are actually low, which should be evaluated by each laboratory responsible for CCP collection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.