Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Deeks JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7387103 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8063888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 made imperative the need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies are usually inconclusive, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. We used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA), and the Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA). We identified 38 studies containing data from 7848 individuals. Tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody alone. All methods yield high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods perform better in terms of sensitivity (90%-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 89%. ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. LFIA tests are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies but show lower sensitivity, and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.
| S-EPMC7278002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological assays are urgently needed for rapid diagnosis, contact tracing, and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how commercially available tests perform with real patient samples, and if positive tested samples show neutralizing abilities. Focusing on IgG antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Vircell COVID-19 ELISA IgG) in comparison to one lateral flow assay (FaStep COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Device) and two in-house developed assays (immunofluorescence assay [IFA] and plaque reduction neutralization test [PRNT]). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals polymerase chain reaction-diagnosed with COVID-19. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 samples were from individuals with moderate to the severe clinical course, who required an in-patient hospital stay. For all examined assays, the sensitivity ranged from 58.8 to 76.5% for the early phase of infection (days 5-9) and from 93.8% to 100% for the later period (days 10-18).
| S-EPMC7300776 | 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-specific IgM antibodies wane during the first three months after infection and IgG antibody levels decline. This may limit the ability of antibody tests to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection at later time points. To examine if the diagnostic sensitivity of antibody tests falls off, we compared the sensitivity of two nucleoprotein-based antibody tests, the Roche Elecsis II Anti-SARS-CoV-2 and the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and three glycoprotein-based tests, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, Siemens Atellica IM COV2T and Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 assay with 53 sera obtained 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of the Roche, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and Siemens antibody assays was 94.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.3-98.8%), 98.1 % (95% CI: 89.9-100%) and 100 % (95% CI: 93.3-100%). The sensitivity of the N-based Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG and the glycoprotein-based Euroimmun ELISA was 45.3 % (95% CI: 31.6-59.6%) and 83.3% (95% CI: 70.2-91.9%). The nucleoprotein-based Roche and the glycoprotein-based Abbott receptor binding domain (RBD) and Siemens tests were more sensitive than the N-based Abbott and the Euroimmun antibody tests (p = 0.0001 to p = 0.039). The N-based Abbott antibody test was less sensitive 6 months than 4-10 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.0001). The findings show that most SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays correctly identified previous infection 6 months after infection. The sensitivity of pan-Ig antibody tests was not reduced at 6 months when IgM antibodies have usually disappeared. However, one of the nucleoprotein-based antibody tests significantly lost diagnostic sensitivity over time.
| S-EPMC8372433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dysregulated immune responses contribute to the excessive and uncontrolled inflammation observed in severe COVID-19. However, how immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is induced and regulated remains unclear. Here we uncover a role of the complement system in the induction of innate and adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Complement rapidly opsonizes SARS-CoV-2 particles via the lectin pathway. Complement-opsonized SARS-CoV-2 efficiently induces type-I interferon and pro-inflammatory cytokine responses via activation of dendritic cells, which are inhibited by antibodies against the complement receptors (CR) 3 and 4. Serum from COVID-19 patients, or monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, attenuate innate and adaptive immunity induced by complement-opsonized SARS-CoV-2. Blocking of CD32, the FcγRII antibody receptor of dendritic cells, restores complement-induced immunity. These results suggest that opsonization of SARS-CoV-2 by complement is involved in the induction of innate and adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the acute phase of infection. Subsequent antibody responses limit inflammation and restore immune homeostasis. These findings suggest that dysregulation of the complement system and FcγRII signaling may contribute to severe COVID-19.
| S-SCDT-10_1038-S44318-024-00061-0 | biostudies-other
Project description:We used commercially available ELISAs to test 68 samples from coronavirus disease cases and prepandemic controls from Benin. We noted <25% false-positive results among controls, likely due to unspecific immune responses elicited by acute malaria. Serologic tests must be carefully evaluated to assess coronavirus disease spread and immunity in tropical regions.
| S-EPMC7774555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTesting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies has become an important tool, complementing nucleic acid tests (NATs) for diagnosis and for determining the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in population serosurveys. The magnitude and persistence of antibody responses are critical for assessing the duration of immunity.MethodsA SARS-CoV-2-specific immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) assay for immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) was developed and prospectively evaluated by comparison to the reference standard of NAT on respiratory tract samples from individuals with suspected COVID-19. Neutralizing antibody responses were measured in a subset of samples using a standard microneutralization assay.ResultsA total of 2753 individuals were eligible for the study (126 NAT-positive; prevalence, 4.6%). The median "window period" from illness onset to appearance of antibodies (range) was 10.2 (5.8-14.4) days. The sensitivity and specificity of either SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, or IgM when collected ≥14 days after symptom onset were 91.3% (95% CI, 84.9%-95.6%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.4%-99.3%), respectively. The negative predictive value was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.3%-99.8%). The positive predictive value of detecting any antibody class was 79.9% (95% CI, 73.3%-85.1%); this increased to 96.8% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.0%) for the combination of IgG and IgA.ConclusionsMeasurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody by IFA is an accurate method to diagnose COVID-19. Serological testing should be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for SARS-CoV-2 infection to identify additional cases where NAT was not performed and resolve cases where false-negative and false-positive NATs are suspected. The majority of individuals develop robust antibody responses following infection, but the duration of these responses and implications for immunity remain to be established.
| S-EPMC7499696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCasirivimab and imdevimab administered together (REGEN-COV™) markedly reduces the risk of hospitalization or death in high-risk, symptomatic individuals with COVID-19. Here, we report phase 3 results of early treatment of asymptomatic, SARS-CoV-2-positive adults and adolescents with subcutaneous REGEN-COV.MethodsIndividuals ≥12 years of age were eligible if identified within 96 hours of a household contact being diagnosed as SARS-CoV-2-positive; 314 were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous REGEN-COV 1200mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of infected participants without evidence of prior immunity (i.e., SARS-CoV-2-RT-qPCR-positive/seronegative) who subsequently developed symptomatic Covid-19 during a 28-day efficacy assessment period.ResultsSubcutaneous REGEN-COV 1200mg significantly prevented progression from asymptomatic to symptomatic disease compared with placebo (31.5% relative risk reduction; 29/100 [29.0%] vs. 44/104 [42.3%], respectively; P=0.0380). REGEN-COV also reduced the overall population burden of high viral load weeks (39.7% reduction vs. placebo; 48 vs. 82 total weeks; P=0.0010) and of symptomatic weeks (45.3% reduction vs. placebo; 89.6 vs. 170.3 total weeks; P=0.0273), the latter corresponding to an approximately 5.6-day reduction per symptomatic participant. Six placebo-treated participants had a Covid-19-related hospitalization or ER visit versus none for those receiving REGEN-COV. The proportion of participants receiving placebo who had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events was 48.1% compared to 33.5% for those receiving REGEN-COV, including Covid-19-related (39.7% vs. 25.8%, respectively) or non-Covid-19-related (16.0% vs. 11.0%, respectively) events.ConclusionsSubcutaneous REGEN-COV 1200mg prevented progression from asymptomatic to symptomatic infection, reduced the duration of high viral load and symptoms, and was well tolerated.(ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04452318.).
| S-EPMC8219113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Awareness of infection with SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for the effectiveness of COVID-19 control measures. Here, we investigate awareness of infection and symptoms in relation to antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in healthy plasma donors. We asked individuals donating plasma across the Netherlands between May 11th and 18th 2020 to report COVID-19-related symptoms, and we tested for antibodies indicative of a past infection with SARS-CoV-2. Among 3,676 with antibodies, and from questionnaire data, 239 (6.5%) are positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Of those, 48% suspect no COVID-19, despite the majority reporting symptoms; 11% of seropositive individuals report no symptoms and 27% very mild symptoms at any time during the first peak of the epidemic. Anosmia/ageusia and fever are most strongly associated with seropositivity. Almost half of seropositive individuals do not suspect SARS-CoV-2 infection. Improved recognition of COVID-19 symptoms, in particular, anosmia/ageusia and fever, is needed to reduce widespread SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
| S-EPMC7917439 | biostudies-literature