tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Med Virol
. 2024 Feb;96(2):e29415.
doi: 10.1002/jmv.29415. SARS-CoV-2 infections among pregnant women, 2020, Finland-Cross-testing of neutralization assays
Jenni Virtanen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Essi M Korhonen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Sami Salonen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Olli Vapalahti[SUP] 1 2 3 [/SUP], Tarja Sironen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Anne J Jääskeläinen[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
We studied the development of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in southern Finland in 2020 and evaluated the performance of two surrogate immunoassays for the detection of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). The data set consisted of 12 000 retrospectively collected samples from pregnant women in their first trimester throughout 2020. All the samples were initially screened for immunoglobulin G (IgG) with SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody assay (EIM-S1, Euroimmun) followed by confirmation with nucleocapsid antibody assay (Architect SARS-CoV-2, Abbott). Samples that were reactive (positive or borderline) with both assays were subjected to testing with commercial surrogate immunoassays of NeutraLISA (EIM) and cPass[SUP]TM[/SUP] (GenScript Biotech Corporation) by using pseudoneutralization assay (PNAbA) as a golden standard. No seropositive cases were detected between January and March. Between April and December, IgG (EIM-S1 and Abbott positive) and NAb (PNAbA positive) seroprevalences were between 0.4% and 1.4%. NeutraLISA showed 90% and cPass 55% concordant results with PNAbA among PNAbA negative samples and 49% and 92% among PNAbA positive samples giving NeutraLISA better specificity but lower sensitivity than cPass. To conclude, seroprevalence in pregnant women reflected that of the general population but the variability of the performance of serological protocols needs to be taken into account in inter-study comparison.
Keywords: IgG; SARS-CoV-2; neutralizing antibodies; serology.
. 2024 Feb;96(2):e29415.
doi: 10.1002/jmv.29415. SARS-CoV-2 infections among pregnant women, 2020, Finland-Cross-testing of neutralization assays
Jenni Virtanen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Essi M Korhonen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Sami Salonen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Olli Vapalahti[SUP] 1 2 3 [/SUP], Tarja Sironen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Anne J Jääskeläinen[SUP] 3 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 38293724
- DOI: 10.1002/jmv.29415
We studied the development of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in southern Finland in 2020 and evaluated the performance of two surrogate immunoassays for the detection of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). The data set consisted of 12 000 retrospectively collected samples from pregnant women in their first trimester throughout 2020. All the samples were initially screened for immunoglobulin G (IgG) with SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody assay (EIM-S1, Euroimmun) followed by confirmation with nucleocapsid antibody assay (Architect SARS-CoV-2, Abbott). Samples that were reactive (positive or borderline) with both assays were subjected to testing with commercial surrogate immunoassays of NeutraLISA (EIM) and cPass[SUP]TM[/SUP] (GenScript Biotech Corporation) by using pseudoneutralization assay (PNAbA) as a golden standard. No seropositive cases were detected between January and March. Between April and December, IgG (EIM-S1 and Abbott positive) and NAb (PNAbA positive) seroprevalences were between 0.4% and 1.4%. NeutraLISA showed 90% and cPass 55% concordant results with PNAbA among PNAbA negative samples and 49% and 92% among PNAbA positive samples giving NeutraLISA better specificity but lower sensitivity than cPass. To conclude, seroprevalence in pregnant women reflected that of the general population but the variability of the performance of serological protocols needs to be taken into account in inter-study comparison.
Keywords: IgG; SARS-CoV-2; neutralizing antibodies; serology.