4.6 Article

Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals

Journal

VIRUSES-BASEL
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14020315

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; serology; neutralization; test comparison; vaccination

Categories

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [ZA 697/6-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med were evaluated, with TECOmedical showing a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 61.3%, and DiaPROPH-Med showing a sensitivity of 95.0% and specificity of 48.4%. Furthermore, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies were observed based on the number of vaccine doses and the type of exposure.
Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.

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