4.6 Article

Comparative performance of WANTAI ELISA for total immunoglobulin to receptor binding protein and an ELISA for IgG to spike protein in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Kenyan populations

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 146, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2021.105061

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; Immunoassay; IgG; Total immunoglobulin; Serology

Categories

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust [220,991/Z/20/Z, 203,077/Z/16/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust Fellowship [214,320]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the performance characteristics of the in-house (KWTRP) ELISA, extensively used in estimating seroprevalence in the Kenyan population, with the WHO-approved WANTAI ELISA. Both assays showed high concordance and sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, making them excellent choices for antibody detection.
Many SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection assays have been developed but their differential performance is not well described. In this study we compared an in-house (KWTRP) ELISA which has been used extensively to estimate seroprevalence in the Kenyan population with WANTAI, an ELISA which has been approved for widespread use by the WHO. Using a wide variety of sample sets including pre-pandemic samples (negative gold standard), SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive samples (positive gold standard) and COVID-19 test samples from different periods (unknowns), we compared performance characteristics of the two assays. The overall concordance between WANTAI and KWTRP was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98). For WANTAI and KWTRP, sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.98) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.87-0.96), respectively. Specificity for WANTAI was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.00) while KWTRP specificity was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00) and 1.00 using pre-pandemic blood donors and pre-pandemic malaria cross-sectional survey samples respectively. Both assays show excellent characteristics to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available