Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG and anti-nucleoprotein IgG seroprevalence amongst a pre-vaccine cohort of healthcare workers at an academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts
Manisha Cole, Maura C. Dodge, Elizabeth R. Duffy, Jordyn N. Osterland, Susan H. Gawel, Lei Ye, Kyle de la Cena, Elizabeth J. Ragan, Sarah E. Weber, Elissa M. Schechter-Perkins, Tara C. Bouton, Karen R. Jacobson
Journal of Laboratory and Precision Medicine
Accurate measurement of antibodies is a necessary tool for assessing exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and facilitating an understanding of the role antibodies play in overall immunity. Most available assays are qualitative in nature and employ a threshold to determine the presence of antibodies, however some-quantitative assays are now available. Using cross-sectional data collected as part of an ongoing longitudinal cohort study, we aim to assess the
... prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using the Abbott AdviseDX SARS-CoV-2 IgG II (anti-S) assay and compare these results to previously measured seroprevalence of anti-nucleoprotein (anti-N) IgG in this cohort of health care workers (HCWs) at an academic medical center in Boston. Methods: A total of 1,743 HCWs at Boston Medical Center (BMC) provided serum samples that were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 anti-S IgG and IgM using the Abbott AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II and Abbott AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay, respectively. These results were compared to previously assessed anti-N IgG seroprevalence. Precision, linearity, and positive and negative concordance with prior reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test were evaluated for the anti-S IgG II assay. Seroprevalence and its association with demographic variables was also assessed. Results: Linearity and precision results were clinically acceptable. The anti-S IgG positive and negative concordance with RT-PCR results were 88.2% (95% CI: 79.4-94.2%) and 97.43% (95% CI: 95.2-98.8%), respectively. Overall, 126 (7.2%) of 1,743 participants were positive for anti-S IgG. The original agreement in this population with the qualitative, anti-N IgG assay was 70.6%. Upon optimizing the threshold from 1.4 to 0.49 signal to cut-off ratio (S/CO) of the anti-N IgG assay, the positive agreement of the assay increased to 84.7%. Conclusions: The anti-S IgG II assay demonstrated reproducible and reliable measurements. Higher anti-S IgG to anti-N IgG seroprevalence highlights the present differences between serum antibodies to different epitopes of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Further, the greater seroprevalence of anti-S IgG compared to ^ ORCID: Maura C. Dodge, 0000-0002-2348-9465; Yachana Kataria, 0000-0002-6249-7134. positive RT-PCR results points to a potential for asymptomatic infection among this group of HCWs. Our results also highlight the potential utility in optimizing thresholds of the qualitative SARS-CoV-2 anti-N IgG assay for better agreement with the anti-S IgG II assay by the same vendor.