Clinical performance of different SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody tests.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kohmer N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7300776 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We examined the usefulness of five COVID-19 antibody detection tests using 114 serum samples at various time points from 34 Japanese COVID-19 patients. We examined Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 from Roche, and four immunochromatography tests from Hangzhou Laihe Biotech, Artron Laboratories, Chil, and Nadal. In the first week after onset, Elecsys had 40% positivity in Group S (severe cases) but was negative in Group M (mild-moderate cases). The immunochromatography kits showed 40-60% and 0-8% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. In the second week, Elecsys showed 75% and 50% positivity, and the immunochromatography tests showed 5-80% and 50-75% positivity in Groups S and M, respectively. After the third week, Elecsys showed 100% positivity in both groups. The immunochromatography kits showed 100% positivity in Group S. In Group M, positivity decreased to 50% for Chil and 75-89% for Artron and Lyher. Elecsys and immunochromatography kits had 91-100% specificity. Elecsys had comparable chronological change of cut-off index values in the two groups from the second week to the sixth week. The current SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests do not provide meaningful interpretation of severity and infection status. Its use might be limited to short-term epidemiological studies.
| S-EPMC7870088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Molecular testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the clinical performance of these tests is still poorly understood, particularly with regard to disease course, patient-specific factors, and viral shedding. From 10 March to 1 May 2020, NewYork-Presbyterian laboratories performed 27,377 SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays from 22,338 patients. Repeat testing was performed for 3,432 patients, of which 2,413 had initial negative and 802 had initial positive results. Repeat-tested patients were more likely to have severe disease and low viral loads. The negative predictive value of the first-day result among repeat-tested patients was 81.3% The clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays was estimated between 58% and 96%, depending on the unknown number of false-negative results in single-tested patients. Conversion to negative was unlikely to occur before 15 to 20 days after initial testing or 20 to 30 days after the onset of symptoms, with 50% conversion occurring at 28 days after initial testing. Conversion from first-day negative to positive results increased linearly with each day of testing, reaching 25% probability in 20 days. Sixty patients fluctuated between positive and negative results over several weeks, suggesting that caution is needed when single-test results are acted upon. In summary, our study provides estimates of the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays and suggests time frames for appropriate repeat testing, namely, 15 to 20 days after a positive test and the same day or next 2 days after a negative test for patients with high suspicion for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7383556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We evaluated the performance of 11 SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests using a reference set of heat-inactivated samples from 278 unexposed persons and 258 COVID-19 patients, some of whom contributed serial samples. The reference set included samples with a variation in SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers, as determined by an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA). The five evaluated rapid diagnostic tests had a specificity of 99.0% and a sensitivity that ranged from 56.3 to 81.6% and decreased with low IFA IgG titers. The specificity was > 99% for five out of six platform-based tests, and when assessed using samples collected ≥ 22 days after symptom onset, two assays had a sensitivity of > 96%. These two assays also detected samples with low IFA titers more frequently than the other assays. In conclusion, the evaluated antibody tests showed a heterogeneity in their performances and only a few tests performed well with samples having low IFA IgG titers, an important aspect for diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.
| S-EPMC8027209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2) is responsible for the infectious respiratory disease called COVID-19 (COronaVIrus Disease 2019). In response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic, point-of-care (POC) tests have been developed to detect specific antibodies, IgG and IgM, to SARS-CoV-2 virus in human whole blood. We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the performance of two POC tests, COVID-PRESTO® and COVID-DUO®, compared to the gold standard, RT-PCR (real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction).MethodsRT-PCR testing of SARS-Cov-2 was performed from nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected in adult patients visiting the infectious disease department at the hospital (Orléans, France). Capillary whole blood (CWB) samples from the fingertip taken at different time points after onset of the disease were tested with POC tests. The specificity and sensitivity of the rapid test kits compared to test of reference (RT-PCR) were calculated.ResultsAmong 381 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 who went to the hospital for a diagnostic, 143 patients were RT-PCR negative. Results of test with POC tests were all negative for these patients, indicating a specificity of 100% for both POC tests. In the RT-PCR positive subgroup (n = 238), 133 patients were tested with COVID-PRESTO® and 129 patients were tested with COVID-DUO® (24 patients tested with both). The further the onset of symptoms was from the date of collection, the greater the sensitivity. The sensitivity of COVID-PRESTO® test ranged from 10.00% for patients having experienced their 1st symptoms from 0 to 5 days ago to 100% in patients where symptoms had occurred more than 15 days before the date of tests. For COVID-DUO® test, the sensitivity ranged from 35.71% [0-5 days] to 100% (> 15 days).ConclusionCOVID-PRESTO® and DUO® POC tests turned out to be very specific (none false positive) and to be sensitive enough after 15 days from onset of symptom. These easy to use IgG/IgM combined test kits are the first ones allowing a screening with CWB sample, by typing from a finger prick. These rapid tests are particularly interesting for screening in low resource settings.
| S-EPMC7498027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to assess the analytic and clinical performance of four rapid lateral flow point-of-care tests (POCTs) for identifying SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. A retrospective study was conducted between 22 January and 30 March 2020 on 132 serum samples for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody detection referred to a tertiary referral hospital laboratory in New South Wales. Multiple sera were tested from 20 confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients with SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies detected by immunofluorescence (IFA) or neutralisation, and 71 SARS-CoV-2 uninfected individuals. We measured the sensitivity and specificity for detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies for each POCT in comparison to positive SARS-CoV-2-specific IFA and viral neutralisation, our current laboratory benchmark tests. All POCTs were found to have a low analytic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, ranging from 27.3% to 58.2%, with a specificity between 88.3% and 100%, and a low clinical sensitivity from 45% to 65%, with a clinical specificity between 87.3% and 100%. All POCTs had an increased sensitivity when specimens were collected more than 14 days from onset of symptoms. The detection using point-of-care testing of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies after disease onset lagged behind IFA by a range of 0-9 days. POCTs promise the benefit of providing quick easy testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. However, their poor sensitivity and delayed antibody detection make them unsuitable as a diagnostic or screening tool alone.
| S-EPMC7508500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are available in various formats, detecting different viral target proteins and antibody subclasses. The specificity and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are known to vary and very few studies have addressed the performance of these tests in COVID-19 patient groups at different time points. We here compared the sensitivity and specificity of seven commercial (SNIBE, Epitope, Euroimmun, Roche, Abbott, DiaSorin, Biosensor) and two in-house LIPS assays (LIPS N and LIPS S-RBD) IgG/total Ab tests in serum samples from 97 COVID-19 patients and 100 controls, and correlated the results with the patients' clinical data and the time-point the test was performed. We found a remarkable variation in the sensitivity of antibody tests with the following performance: LIPS N (91.8%), Epitope (85.6%), Abbott and in-house LIPS S-RBD (both 84.5%), Roche (83.5%), Euroimmun (82.5%), DiaSorin (81.4%), SNIBE (70.1%), and Biosensor (64.9%). The overall agreement between the tests was between 71-95%, whereas the specificity of all tests was within 98-100%. The correlation with patients' clinical symptoms score ranged from strongest in LIPS N (ρ = 0.41; p<0.001) to nonsignificant in LIPS S-RBD. Furthermore, the time of testing since symptom onset had an impact on the sensitivity of some tests. Our study highlights the importance to consider clinical symptoms, time of testing, and using more than one viral antigen in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Our results suggest that some antibody tests are more sensitive for the detection of antibodies in early stage and asymptomatic patients, which may explain the contradictory results of previous studies and should be taken into consideration in clinical practice and epidemiological studies.
| S-EPMC7591045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are urgently needed for diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how recently commercially available, high-throughput immunoassays, using different recombinant SARS-CoV-2 antigens, perform with clinical samples. Focusing on IgG and total antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of four automated immunoassays (Abbott Architect™ i2000 (N protein-based)), Roche cobas™ e 411 analyzer (N protein-based, not differentiating between IgA, IgM or IgG antibodies), LIAISON®XL platform (S1 and S2 protein-based), VIRCLIA® automation system (S1 and N protein-based) in comparison to two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG (S1 protein-based) and Virotech SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA (N protein-based)) and an in-house developed plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. When calculating the overall sensitivity, in a time frame of 49 days after first PCR-positivity, the PRNT as gold standard, showed the highest sensitivity with 93.3% followed by the dual-target assay for the VIRCLIA® automation system with 89%. The overall sensitivity in the group of N protein-based assays ranged from 66.7 to 77.8% and in the S protein-based-assays from 71.1 to 75.6%. Five follow-up samples of three individuals were only detected in either an S and/or N protein-based assay, indicating an individual different immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and the influence of the used assay in the detection of IgG antibodies. This should be further analysed. The specificity of the examined assays was ? 97%. However, because of the low or unknown prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, the examined assays in this study are currently primarily eligible for epidemiological investigations, as they have limited information in individual testing.
| S-EPMC7263247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 is key for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.AimWe estimate diagnostic accuracy for nucleic acid and antibody tests 5 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and compare with manufacturer-reported accuracy.MethodsWe reviewed the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and antibody tests based on 93,757 test results from 151 published studies and 20,205 new test results from 12 countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA).ResultsPooling the results and considering only results with 95% confidence interval width ≤ 5%, we found four nucleic acid tests, including one point-of-care test and three antibody tests, with a clinical sensitivity ≥ 95% for at least one target population (hospitalised, mild or asymptomatic, or unknown). Nine nucleic acid tests and 25 antibody tests, 12 of them point-of-care tests, had a clinical specificity of ≥ 98%. Three antibody tests achieved both thresholds. Evidence for nucleic acid point-of-care tests remains scarce at present, and sensitivity varied substantially. Study heterogeneity was low for eight of 14 sensitivity and 68 of 84 specificity results with confidence interval width ≤ 5%, and lower for nucleic acid tests than antibody tests. Manufacturer-reported clinical performance was significantly higher than independently assessed in 11 of 32 and four of 34 cases, respectively, for sensitivity and specificity, indicating a need for improvement in this area.ConclusionContinuous monitoring of clinical performance within more clearly defined target populations is needed.
| S-EPMC8646979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hundreds of RT-qPCR kits are available in the market for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, some of them with emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) or their country of origin agency, but also many of them without any independent clinical performance evaluation. We performed a clinical evaluation for two Chinese SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kits available in South America, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis Biomedicine, Wuhan, China) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech, Changsha, China), for RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using the FDA EUA 2019-nCoV CDC kit (IDT, Coralville, IA) as gold standard. We found an excellent clinical performance and analytical sensitivity for both kits with sensitivity values of 100% and 95.3% and estimated limit of detection of 500 copies/mL and 1,000 copies/mL, for eDiagnosis and Sansure Biotech kits, respectively. COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech) are both made in China and hold EUA by the Chinese CDC. Also, Sansure Biotech kit has EUA by the FDA. In conclusion, our results endorse the use of these two commercially available kits imported to Ecuador for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, as they had the similar clinical performance as the gold standard from the CDC.
| S-EPMC8045661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS:Specificity was evaluated in 103 samples collected before January 2020. Sensitivity and time to seropositivity was evaluated in 167 samples from 94 patients with COVID-19 confirmed with RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. RESULTS:Specificity (confidence interval) of lateral flow assays (LFAs) was ?91.3% (84.0-95.5) for IgM, ?90.3% (82.9-94.8) for IgG, and ?85.4% (77.2-91.1) for the combination IgM OR IgG. Specificity of the ELISA was 96.1% (90.1-98.8) for IgG and only 73.8% (64.5-81.4) for IgA. Sensitivity 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was between ?92.1% (78.5-98.0) and 100% (95.7-100) for IgG LFA compared to 89.5% (75.3-96.4) for IgG ELISA. Positivity of IgM OR IgG for LFA resulted in a decrease in specificity compared to IgG alone without a gain in diagnostic performance, except for VivaDiag. The results for IgM varied significantly between the LFAs with an average overall agreement of only 70% compared to 89% for IgG. The average dynamic trend to seropositivity for IgM was not shorter than for IgG. At the time of hospital admission the sensitivity of LFA was <60%. CONCLUSIONS:Sensitivity for the detection of IgG antibodies 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was ?92.1% for all seven LFAs compared to 89.5% for the IgG ELISA. The results for IgM varied significantly, and including IgM antibodies in addition to IgG for the interpretation of LFAs did not improve the diagnostic performance.
| S-EPMC7255746 | biostudies-literature