A comparative trial of anti-glycoconjugate antibody assays: IgM antibodies to GM1

1994 ◽  
Vol 241 (8) ◽  
pp. 475-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Zielasek ◽  
G. Ritter ◽  
S. Magi ◽  
H. P. Hartung ◽  
K. V. Toyka
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Kannenberg ◽  
Carolin Schnurra ◽  
Nina Reiners ◽  
Reinhard Henschler ◽  
Raymund Buhmann ◽  
...  

SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM antibodies wane during the first three months after infection and IgG antibody levels decline. This may limit the ability of antibody tests to identify previous SARS CoV-2 infection at later time points. To examine if the sensitivity of antibody tests falls off, we compared the sensitivity of two nucleoprotein-based antibody tests, the Roche Elecsis II Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and three glycoprotein-based tests, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Siemens Atellica IM COV2T and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 assay with 56 sera obtained 6-8 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of the Roche, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Siemens antibody assays was 94.6 % (95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1-98.9 %), 98.2 % (95% CI: 90.4-99.9 %) and 100 % (95% CI: 93.6-100 %). The sensitivity of the N-based Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and the glycoprotein-based Euroimmun ELISA was 48.2 % (95% CI: 34.7-62.0 %) and 83.9 % (95% CI: 71.7-92.4 %). The nucleoprotein-based Roche and the glycoprotein-based Abbott RBD and Siemens tests were more sensitive than the N-based Abbott and the Euroimmun antibody tests (p=0.0001 to p=0.039). The N-based Abbott antibody test was less sensitive 6-8 months than 4-10 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.0002). The findings show that most SARS CoV-2 antibody assays correctly identified previous infection 6-8 months after infection. The sensitivity of pan-Ig antibody tests was not reduced at 6-8 months when IgM antibodies have usually disappeared. However, one of the nucleoprotein-based antibody tests significantly lost sensitivity over time.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0253514
Author(s):  
Richard Porwancher ◽  
Lisa Landsberg

Multiple different recombinant and peptide antigens are now available for serodiagnosis of Lyme disease (LD), but optimizing test utilization remains challenging. Since 1995 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended a 2-tiered serologic approach consisting of a first-tier whole-cell enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for polyvalent antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi followed by confirmation of positive or equivocal results by IgG and IgM immunoblots [standard 2-tiered (STT) approach]. Newer modified 2-tiered (MTT) approaches employ a second-tier EIA to detect antibodies to B. burgdorferi rather than immunoblotting. We applied modern bioinformatic techniques to a large public database of recombinant and peptide antigen-based immunoassays to improve testing strategy. A retrospective CDC collection of 280 LD samples and 559 controls had been tested using the STT approach as well as kinetic-EIAs for VlsE1-IgG, C6-IgG, VlsE1-IgM, and pepC10-IgM antibodies. When used individually, the cutoff for each kinetic-EIA was set to generate 99% specificity. Utilizing logistic-likelihood regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) techniques we determined that VlsE1-IgG, C6-IgG, and pepC10-IgM antibodies each contributed significant diagnostic information; a single-tier diagnostic score (DS) was generated for each sample using a weighted linear combination of antibody levels to these 3 antigens. DS performance was then compared to the STT and to MTT models employing different combinations of kinetic-EIAs. After setting the DS cutoff to match STT specificity (99%), the DS was 22.5% more sensitive than the STT for early-acute-phase disease (95% CI: 11.8% to 32.2%), 16.0% more sensitive for early-convalescent-phase disease (95% CI: 7.2% to 24.7%), and equivalent for detection of disseminated infection. The DS was also significantly more sensitive for early-acute-phase LD than MTT models whose specificity met or exceeded 99%. Prospective validation of this single-tier diagnostic score for Lyme disease will require larger studies using a broader range of potential cross-reacting conditions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document