Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals

2022-02-03 | journal article; research paper. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals​
Münsterkötter, L.; Hollstein, M. M.; Hahn, A.; Kröger, A.; Schnelle, M.; Erpenbeck, L. & Groß, U. et al.​ (2022) 
Viruses14(2).​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14020315 

Documents & Media

viruses-14-00315-v3.pdf1.11 MBAdobe PDF

License

GRO License GRO License

Details

Authors
Münsterkötter, Lennart; Hollstein, Moritz Maximilian; Hahn, Andreas; Kröger, Andrea; Schnelle, Moritz; Erpenbeck, Luise; Groß, Uwe; Frickmann, Hagen; Zautner, Andreas Erich 
Abstract
Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.
Issue Date
3-February-2022
Journal
Viruses 
eISSN
1999-4915
Language
English
Sponsor
Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2022

Reference

Citations


Social Media