ArticleClinical immunology communications2022
Evaluation of the performance of a lateral flow device for quantitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG.
Article in Clinical immunology communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe AbC-19™ lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) performance was evaluated on plasma samples from a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination cohort, WHO international standards for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (human), individuals ≥2 weeks from infection of RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 genetic variants, as well as microorganism serology.
methodsPre-vaccination to three weeks post-booster samples were collected from a cohort of 111 patients (including clinically extremely vulnerable patients) from Northern Ireland. All patients received Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccination for the first and second dose, and Pfizer-BioNTech for the third (first booster). WHO international standards, 15 samples from 2 variants of concern (Delta and Omicron) and cross-reactivity with plasma samples from other microorganism infections were also assessed on AbC-19™.
resultsAll 80 (100%) participants sampled post-booster had high positive IgG responses, compared to 38/95 (40%) participants at 6 months post-first vaccination. WHO standard results correlated with information from corresponding biological data sheets, and antibodies to all genetic variants were detected by LFIA. No cross-reactivity was found with exception of one (of five) Dengue virus samples.
conclusionThese findings suggest BNT162b2 booster vaccination enhanced humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from pre-booster levels, and that this antibody response was detectable by the LFIA. In combination with cross-reactivity, standards and genetic variant results would suggest LFIA may be a cost-effective measure to assess SARS-CoV-2 antibody status.
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.