Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36504019›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical virology2023

A performance comparison of two (electro) chemiluminescence immunoassays for detection and quantitation of serum anti-spike antibodies according to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infections status.

Jorge Camacho, Eliseo Albert, Joao Zulaica, Beatriz Álvarez-Rodríguez, Luciana Rusu, Beatriz Olea, María Jesús Alcaraz, Ron Geller, Estela Giménez, David Navarro

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical virology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jorge CamachoMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6602-0966
Eliseo AlbertMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Joao ZulaicaInstitute for Integrative Systems Biology (I2SysBio), Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, Valencia, Spain.
Beatriz Álvarez-RodríguezInstitute for Integrative Systems Biology (I2SysBio), Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, Valencia, Spain.
Luciana RusuInstitute for Integrative Systems Biology (I2SysBio), Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, Valencia, Spain.
Beatriz OleaMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
María Jesús AlcarazMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Ron GellerInstitute for Integrative Systems Biology (I2SysBio), Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, Valencia, Spain.
Estela GiménezMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
David NavarroMicrobiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3010-4110
Universitat de València · ESINCLIVA Health Research Institute · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The information provided by SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-targeting immunoassays can be instrumental in clinical-decision making. We compared the performance of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay (Roche Diagnostics) and the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (DiaSorin) using a total of 1176 sera from 797 individuals, of which 286 were from vaccinated-SARS-CoV-2/experienced (Vac-Ex), 581 from vaccinated/naïve (Vac-N), 147 from unvaccinated/experienced (Unvac-Ex), and 162 from unvaccinated/naïve (Unvac-N) individuals. The Roche assay returned a higher number of positive results (907 vs. 790; p = 0.45; overall sensitivity: 89.3% vs. 77.6%). The concordance between results provided by the two immunoassays was higher for sera from Vac-N (ϰ: 0.58; interquartile ranges [IQR]: 0.50-0.65) than for sera from Vac-Ex (ϰ: 0.19; IQR: -0.14 to 0.52) or Unvac-Ex (ϰ: 0.18; IQR: 0.06-0.30). Discordant results occurred more frequently among sera from Unvac-Ex (34.7%) followed by Vac-N (14.6%) and Vac-Ex (2.7%). Antibody levels quantified by both immunoassays were not significantly different when <250 (p = 0.87) or <1000 BAU/ml (p = 0.13); in contrast, for sera ≥1000 BAU/ml, the Roche assay returned significantly higher values than the DiaSorin assay (p < 0.008). Neutralizing antibody titers (NtAb) were measured in 127 sera from Vac-Ex or Vac-N using a S-pseudotyped virus neutralization assay of Wuhan-Hu-1, Omicron BA.1, and Omicron BA.2. The correlation between antibody levels and NtAb titers was higher for sera from Vac-N than those from Vac-Ex, irrespective of the (sub)variant considered. In conclusion, neither qualitative nor quantitative results returned by both immunoassays are interchangeable. The performance of both assays was found to be greatly influenced by the vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection status of individuals.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin GLuminescenceSARS-CoV-2VaccinationAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin GantibodiesDiaSorin immunoassayneutralizing antibodiesreceptor binding domain antibodiesRoche immunoassaySARS-CoV-2S-trimeric antibodies

Identifiers

PMID36504019
PMCPMC9877996
OpenAlexW4311201127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.