Comparative evaluation of Luminex based assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a transplantation laboratory

BACKGROUND

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is essential in establishing the parameters of an individual's immune response to COVID-19, from both natural infection and vaccination. Despite this, there is currently limited clinical guidance or recommendations for serological methods for their measurement. Here, we evaluate and compare four Luminex-based assays for the multiplex detection of IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

METHODS

The four assays tested were Magnetic Luminex Assay, MULTICOV-AB Assay, Luminex xMAP SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen IgG Assay and LABScreen COVID Plus Assay. Each assay's ability to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S), Nucleocapsid (N) and Spike-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) was evaluated using 50 test samples (25 positive, 25 negative), previously tested by a widely used ELISA technique.

RESULTS

The MULTICOV-AB Assay had the highest clinical performance detecting antibodies to S trimer and RBD in 100% (n = 25) of known positive samples. Both the Magnetic Luminex Assay and LABScreen COVID Plus Assay showed significant diagnostic accuracy with sensitivities of 90% and 88% respectively. The Luminex xMAP SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen IgG Assay demonstrated limited detection of antibodies to the S antigen resulting in a sensitivity of 68%.

CONCLUSION

Luminex-based assays provide a suitable serological method for multiplex detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies, with each assay able to detect antibodies to a minimum of 3 different SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Assay comparison identified there is moderate performance variability between manufacturers and further inter-assay variation of antibodies detected to different SARS-CoV-2 antigens.

BSHI/BTS guidance on crossmatching before deceased donor kidney transplantation

All UK H&I laboratories and transplant units operate under a single national kidney offering policy, but there have been variations in approach regarding when to undertake the pre‐transplant crossmatch test. In order to minimize cold ischaemia times for deceased donor kidney transplantation we sought to find ways to be able to report a crossmatch result as early as possible in the donation process. A panel of experts in transplant surgery, nephrology, specialist nursing in organ donation and H&I (all relevant UK laboratories represented) assessed evidence and opinion concerning five factors that relate to the effectiveness of the crossmatch process, as follows: when the result should be ready for reporting; what level of donor HLA typing is needed; crossmatch sample type and availability; fairness and equity; risks and patient safety. Guidelines aimed at improving practice based on these issues are presented, and we expect that following these will allow H&I laboratories to contribute to reducing CIT in deceased donor kidney transplantation.