4.7 Article

Evaluation of Simple Lateral Flow Immunoassays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies

Journal

VACCINES
Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10030347

Keywords

COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; vaccination; BNT162b2; neutralizing antibodies

Funding

  1. Saxon State Ministry for Science, Culture and Tourism (grant SaxoCOV)
  2. European Virus Archive GLOBAL (EVA-GLOBAL) project from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [871029]
  3. European Union [871029]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compares the diagnostic performance of three lateral flow assays in detecting antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination. The results suggest that these methods have reasonable application in short-term follow-up.
Immunization for the generation of protective antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged to be highly effective in preventing hospital admission, need for intensive care treatment and high mortality in the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immune assays (LFIAs) offer a simple and competitive option to monitor antibody production after vaccination. Here, we compared the diagnostic performance of three different lateral flow assays in detecting nucleocapsid protein (NP), S1 subunit (S1) and receptor binding domain (pseudo)-neutralizing antibodies (nRBD) in sera of 107 health care workers prior (V1), two weeks (V2) after first vaccination with BNT162b2 as well as three weeks (V3) and eight months later (V4). In sera at V1, overall specificity was >99%. At V3, LFIAs showed sensitivities between 98.1 and 100%. The comparison of S1 and nRBD LFIA with S1 ELISA and a focus reduction neutralization assay (FRNT) revealed high concordance at V3. Thus, the use of lateral flow immunoassays appears to have reasonable application in the short-term follow-up after vaccination for SARS-CoV-2.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available