• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Chim Acta . Antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals with and without COVID-19 vacc

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Chim Acta


. 2021 Mar 16;S0009-8981(21)00083-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2021.03.007. Online ahead of print.
Antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals with and without COVID-19 vaccination: a method comparison of two different commercially available serological assays from the same manufacturer


Thomas Mueller[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: We compared two serological assays from Roche Diagnostics in individuals with and without COVID-19 vaccination, namely the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (detecting antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2) and the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay (detecting antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2).
Methods: With both assays, we analyzed 3033 serum samples collected from 2496 patients without COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, we studied 34 healthcare-workers who received two injections of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine from BioNTech/Pfizer three weeks apart and who had repeatedly determined their antibody response by both assays.
Results: In our cohort of patients without COVID-19 vaccination, 62.9% of all determinations were negative with both Roche assays and 31.5% were positive with both assays. In 5.6% of our cohort, however, there were discordant results with both assays (partly because initially discordant results of the two assays became concordantly positive over time). In the healthcare-workers with the COVID-19 vaccination, the results of the Roche anti-nucleocapsid assay remained negative throughout the observation period of 5 weeks after vaccination. The initially negative antibodies against the spike protein became positive with the Roche assay in all samples two weeks after the initial injection, and the serum concentrations of anti-spike antibodies increased constantly until 4-5 weeks after the initial injection.
Conclusions: Here, we provide information on serological testing with the two Roche assays, which may be important for the application of the two assays in clinical routine. There are differences in the pattern of antibodies in individuals with and without COVID-19 vaccination.

Keywords: Antibody; COVID-19; laboratory medicine; serologic testing; vaccine; virology.
 
Back
Top Bottom