Investigation of serological response to COVID-19 among healthcare workers using four different kits : Investigation of COVID-19 antibody levels

Saadet İbiş; Ersin  Doğanözü; Turan Akdağ; Sedat Abuşoğlu; Ali Ünlü

doi:10.5281/zenodo.13774787

Authors

Saadet İbiş Ankara 29 Mayıs State Hospital, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Ankara, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0646-946X
Ersin Doğanözü Ankara 29 Mayıs State Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Ankara, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0349-2691
Turan Akdağ Necmettin Erbakan University Meram Vocational School, Department of Plant and Animal Production, Konya, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3175-6751
Sedat Abuşoğlu Selçuk University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Konya, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2984-0527
Ali Ünlü Selçuk University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Konya, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9991-3939

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13774787

Keywords:

Antibody, COVID-19, healthcare worker , immunoassay , outbreak, vaccine

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the serological response to SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers at a hospital in Turkey using kits from four different companies.

Methods: The study included 120 healthcare workers who received the Sinovac vaccine at a Turkish hospital. Serum samples were collected from these participants who had received the Sinovac vaccine ata median of 1 month after administration of the second dose. Samples were tested using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Beckman Coulter Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Maglumi 2019-nCoV IgG, and Siemens Advia Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG test kits. In the presented comparative study, the results of the different immunoassay analyzers were compared. Relationships among the results were evaluated by comparing the levels of antibodies against spike proteins.

Results: The results of the antibody analyses differed according to the kits that were used. The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant test was positive for 44.17% and negative for 55.83% of the participants, the Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG test was positive for 80.83% and negative for 19.17%, the Maglumi 2019-nCoV IgG test was negative for 55% and positive for 45%, and the Advia Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG test was positive for 88.83% and negative for 11.67%. The number of participants who tested positive when the Abbott kit was used differed significantly compared to other analysis kits (p<0.0001). The difference between the Beckman Coulter and Maglumi kits was not significant (p>0.37), but the difference between the Maglumi and Siemens kits was significant, with the positivity rate of the Siemens kit being significantly higher (p<0.0001).

Conclusion: This study has confirmed that serological tests produced by different manufacturers can be used to identify individuals exposed to the COVID-19 virus and to assess the exposure rate of the community.

References

Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, Wang X, Zhou L, Tong Y, et al. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1199-207.

Organization, WHO. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19-11 March 2020 [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.

Brlić PK, Pavletić M, Lerga M, Krstanović F, Matešić MP, Miklić K, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Spike and Nucleocapsid Antibody Response in Vaccinated Croatian Healthcare Workers and Infected Hospitalized Patients: A Single Center Cohort Study. Viruses. 2022;14:1966.

da Silva SJR, Silva CTAD, Guarines KM, Mendes RPG, Pardee K, Kohl A, et al. Clinical and Laboratory Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, the Virus Causing COVID-19. ACS Infect Dis. 2020;6:2319-36.

Bai Z, Cao Y, Liu W, Li J. The SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein and Its Role in Viral Structure, Biological Functions, and a Potential Target for Drug or Vaccine Mitigation. Viruses. 2021;13:1115.

Kudlay D, Kofiadi I, Khaitov M. Peculiarities of the T Cell Immune Response in COVID-19. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10:242.

Shah VK, Firmal P, Alam A, Ganguly D, Chattopadhyay S. Overview of Immune Response During SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Lessons From the Past. Front Immunol. 2020;11:1949.

Tutukina M, Kaznadzey A, Kireeva M, Mazo I. IgG Antibodies Develop to Spike but Not to the Nucleocapsid Viral Protein in Many Asymptomatic and Light COVID-19 Cases. Viruses. 2021;13:1945.

Zhuo R, Charlton C, Plitt S, Thompson LA, Braun S, Day J, et al. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody quantitative titer reporting using the World Health Organization International Standard Units by four commercial assays. J Clin Virol. 2022;156:105292.

Sander I, Kespohl S, Zahradnik E, Göcke P, Hosbach I, Herrmann BL, et al. Quantitative measurement of IgG to SARS-CoV-2 antigens using monoclonal antibody-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Clin Transl Immunology. 2022;11:e1369.

Jacofsky D, Jacofsky EM, Jacofsky M. Understanding Antibody Testing for COVID-19. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:S74-S81.

Chaplin DD. Overview of the immune response. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125:S3-23.

Kim JM, Kim HM, Lee EJ, Jo HJ, Yoon Y, Lee NJ, et al. Detection and Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in Serum, Urine, and Stool Specimens of COVID-19 Patients from the Republic of Korea. Osong Public Health Res Perspect. 2020;11:112-7.

Zhao J, Yuan Q, Wang H, Liu W, Liao X, Su Y, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clinical infectious diseases. 2019;71: 2027-34.

Vural S, Hacıbekiroğlu M, Yıldır FR, Vural P. Post-vaccine immunological response in a group of healthcare professionals with and without COVID-19 in the pandemic. ANKEM Journal. 2021;35:45-52.

Liu Y, Ning Z, Chen Y, Guo M, Liu Y, Gali NK, et al. Aerodynamic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in two Wuhan hospitals. Nature. 2020;582:557-60.

Bilgin H, Marku M, Yilmaz SS, Karahasan Yagci A, Sili U, Can B, et al. The effect of immunization with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) and/or SARS-CoV-2 infection on antibody levels, plasmablasts, long-lived-plasma-cells, and IFN-γ release by natural killer cells. Vaccine. 2022;40:2619-25.

Karamese M, Tutuncu EE. The effectiveness of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on antibody response in participants aged 65 years and older. J Med Virol. 2022;94:173-7.

Tantuoyir MM, Rezaei N. Serological tests for COVID-19: Potential opportunities. Cell Biol Int. 2021;45:740-8.

Fafi-Kremer S, Bruel T, Madec Y, Grant R, Tondeur L, Grzelak L, et al. Serologic responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital staff with mild disease in eastern France. EBioMedicine. 2020;59:102915.

Arkhipova-Jenkins I, Helfand M, Armstrong C, Gean E, Anderson J, Paynter RA, et al. Antibody Response After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review. Ann Intern Med 2021;174:811-21.

Khawaja S, Asif M, Naz Mukry S, Sultan Shamsi T. Possible correlation of electrochemiluminescence based numerical cut off index value with concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody: Is it worth reporting? J Public Health Res. 2021;10:2079.