Evaluation of the correlation between the access SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests with the SARS‐CoV‐2 surrogate virus neutralization test
Yutaro Kitagawa, Kazuo Imai, Masaru Matsuoka, Ai Fukada, Katsumi Kubota, Momoko Sato, Tomohito Takada, Sakiko Noguchi, Norihito Tarumoto, Shigefumi Maesaki, Shinichi Takeuchi, Takuya Maeda
Abstract
Abstract Fully automated immunoassays for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) antibodies that are strongly correlated with neutralization antibodies (nAbs) are clinically important because they enable the assessment of humoral immunity after infection and vaccination. Access SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) II antibody tests are semi‐quantitative, fully automated immunoassays that detect anti‐receptor‐binding domain (RBD) antibodies and might reflect nAb levels in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). However, no studies have investigated the clinical utility of these tests in association with nAbs to date. To evaluate the clinical utility of Access SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests and their correlation with the SARS‐CoV‐2 surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) that measures nAbs in patients with COVID‐19, we analyzed 54 convalescent serum samples from COVID‐19 patients and 89 serum samples from non‐COVID‐19 patients. The presence of anti‐RBD antibodies was detected using Access SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests, while nAbs were measured by sVNT. The sensitivity and specificity of sVNT were 94.4% and 98.9%, respectively. There were strong positive correlations between the inhibition values of sVNT and the results of the Access SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM ( R = 0.95, R 2 = 0.90, p < 0.001) and IgG II antibody tests ( R = 0.96, R 2 = 0.92, p < 0.001). In terms of the presence of nAbs, the sensitivity and specificity were 98.1% and 98.9% in the IgM assay and 100.0% and 100.0% in the IgG II assay, respectively. The Access SARS‐CoV‐2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests showed high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of nAbs in COVID‐19 patients and might be alternatives for measuring nAbs.