Meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of serology tests for COVID-19: impact of assay design and post-symptom-onset intervals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wang H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7580610 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Timely and accurate laboratory testing is essential for managing the global COVID-19 pandemic. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction remains the gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, but several practical issues limit the test's use. Immunoassays have been indicated as an alternative for individual and mass testing.ObjectivesTo access the performance of 12 serological tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.MethodsWe conducted a blind evaluation of six lateral-flow immunoassays (LFIAs) and six enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) commercially available in Brazil for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.ResultsConsidering patients with seven or more days of symptoms, the sensitivity ranged from 59.5% to 83.1% for LFIAs and from 50.7% to 92.6% for ELISAs. For both methods, the sensitivity increased with clinical severity and days of symptoms. The agreement among LFIAs performed with digital blood and serum was moderate. Specificity was, in general, higher for LFIAs than for ELISAs. Infectious diseases prevalent in the tropics, such as HIV, leishmaniasis, arboviruses, and malaria, represent conditions with the potential to cause false-positive results with these tests, which significantly compromises their specificity.ConclusionThe performance of immunoassays was only moderate, affected by the duration and clinical severity of the disease. Absence of discriminatory power between IgM/IgA and IgG has also been demonstrated, which prevents the use of acute-phase antibodies for decisions on social isolation.
| S-EPMC7544564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Timely diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is a prerequisite for treatment and prevention. The serology characteristics and complement diagnosis value of the antibody test to RNA test need to be demonstrated. METHOD:Serial sera of 80 patients with PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were collected at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Total antibody (Ab), IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected, and the antibody dynamics during the infection were described. RESULTS:The seroconversion rates for Ab, IgM and IgG were 98.8%, 93.8% and 93.8%, respectively. The first detectible serology marker was Ab, followed by IgM and IgG, with a median seroconversion time of 15, 18 and 20?days post exposure (d.p.e.) or 9, 10 and 12?days post onset (d.p.o.), respectively. The antibody levels increased rapidly beginning at 6?d.p.o. and were accompanied by a decline in viral load. For patients in the early stage of illness (0-7?d.p.o), Ab showed the highest sensitivity (64.1%) compared with IgM and IgG (33.3% for both; p<0.001). The sensitivities of Ab, IgM and IgG increased to 100%, 96.7% and 93.3%, respectively, 2?weeks later. When the same antibody type was detected, no significant difference was observed between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and other forms of immunoassays. CONCLUSIONS:A typical acute antibody response is induced during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology testing provides an important complement to RNA testing in the later stages of illness for pathogenic-specific diagnosis and helpful information to evaluate the adapted immunity status of patients.
| S-EPMC7401320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the emergency of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, great efforts were made to quickly provide serology testing to the medical community however, these methods have been introduced into clinical practice without the complete validation usually required by the regulatory organizations. SARS-CoV-2 patient samples (n = 43) were analyzed alongside pre-pandemic control specimen (n = 50), confirmed respiratory infections (n = 50), inflammatory polyarthritis (n = 22) and positive for thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin (n = 30). Imprecision, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and concordance were evaluated on IgG serologic assays from EuroImmun, Epitope Diagnostics (EDI), Abbott Diagnostics and DiaSorin and a rapid IgG/IgM test from Healgen. EDI and EuroImmun imprecision was 0.02-14.0% CV. Abbott and DiaSorin imprecision (CV) ranged from 5.2%-8.1% and 8.2%-9.6% respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity of the assays was 100% (CI: 80-100%) for Abbott, EDI and EuroImmun and 95% (CI: 73-100%) for DiaSorin at ≥14 days post PCR. Only the Abbott assay had a diagnostic specificity of 100% (CI: 91-100%). EuroImmun cross-reacted in 3 non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections and 2 controls. The DiaSorin displayed more false negative results and cross-reacted in six cases across all conditions tested. EDI had one cross-reactive sample. The Healgen rapid test showed excellent sensitivity and specificity. Overall, concordance of the assays ranged from 76.1% to 97.9%. Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 showed good analytical performance. The head-to-head analysis of samples revealed differences in results that may be linked to the use of nucleocapsid or spike proteins. The point of care device tested demonstrated adequate performance for antibody detection.
| S-EPMC7888604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The current recommendation for the laboratory confirmation of Lyme disease is serology-based diagnostics. Specifically, a standardized two-tiered testing (STTT) algorithm is applied that utilizes a first-tier immunofluorescence assay or enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that, if the result is positive or equivocal, is followed by second-tier immunoblotting. Despite the standardization and performance achievements, STTT is considered technically complex and subjective, as well as insensitive for early acute infection. These issues have prompted development of novel algorithms and testing platforms. In this study, we evaluated the performance of several commonly used assays for STTT. Several modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) algorithms, including a 2-EIA algorithm and modified criteria for second-tier IgG immunoblots, were also evaluated. All tests were performed on sera from a recently available, well-defined archive of positive- and negative-control patients. Our study demonstrates differences in the results between individual first- and second-tier tests, although the overall agreement of the different STTT algorithms used was strong. In addition, the MTTT algorithm utilizing 2-EIAs was found to be equivalent to all STTT algorithms tested, with agreement ranging from 94 to 97%. The 2-EIA MTTT algorithm slightly enhanced sensitivity in early disease compared to the STTT algorithms evaluated. Furthermore, these data add to the mounting evidence that a 2-EIA-based MTTT algorithm, where immunoblotting is replaced by the C6 EIA, performs as well or better than STTT.
| S-EPMC5078550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-world performance of COVID-19 diagnostic tests under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) must be assessed. We describe overall trends in the performance of serology tests in the context of real-world implementation.MethodsSix health systems estimated the odds of seropositivity and positive percent agreement (PPA) of serology test among people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular test. In each dataset, we present the odds ratio and PPA, overall and by key clinical, demographic, and practice parameters.ResultsA total of 15,615 people were observed to have at least one serology test 14-90 days after a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. We observed higher PPA in Hispanic (PPA range: 79-96%) compared to non-Hispanic (60-89%) patients; in those presenting with at least one COVID-19 related symptom (69-93%) as compared to no such symptoms (63-91%); and in inpatient (70-97%) and emergency department (93-99%) compared to outpatient (63-92%) settings across datasets. PPA was highest in those with diabetes (75-94%) and kidney disease (83-95%); and lowest in those with auto-immune conditions or who are immunocompromised (56-93%). The odds ratios (OR) for seropositivity were higher in Hispanics compared to non-Hispanics (OR range: 2.59-3.86), patients with diabetes (1.49-1.56), and obesity (1.63-2.23); and lower in those with immunocompromised or autoimmune conditions (0.25-0.70), as compared to those without those comorbidities. In a subset of three datasets with robust information on serology test name, seven tests were used, two of which were used in multiple settings and met the EUA requirement of PPA ≥87%. Tests performed similarly across datasets.ConclusionAlthough the EUA requirement was not consistently met, more investigation is needed to understand how serology and molecular tests are used, including indication and protocol fidelity. Improved data interoperability of test and clinical/demographic data are needed to enable rapid assessment of the real-world performance of in vitro diagnostic tests.
| S-EPMC9897562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AID assay performance on a cohort of Romanian tuberculosis patients
| PRJEB42600 | ENA
Project description:BACKGROUND:Tuberculosis (TB) during pregnancy in HIV-infected women is associated with poor maternal and infant outcomes. There are limited data on TB prevalence, optimal TB screening, and performance of rapid diagnostics in pregnant HIV-infected women. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional study among HIV-infected pregnant women seeking antenatal care in western Kenya. After a standardized questionnaire, sputum smear microscopy for acid-fast bacilli, mycobacterial liquid culture, GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), urine lipoarabinomannan, and tuberculin skin testing were performed. We determined prevalence and correlates of culture-confirmed pulmonary TB, and compared diagnostic performance of World Health Organization (WHO) symptom screening and rapid diagnostic tests to sputum culture. RESULTS:Between July 2013 and July 2014, we enrolled 306 women. Among 288 women with a valid sputum culture result, 54% were on antiretroviral treatment, median CD4 cell count was 437 cell per cubic millimeter (IQR 342-565), and prevalence of culture-confirmed pulmonary TB was 2.4% (confidence interval: 1.0% to 4.9%). Cough >2 weeks (P = 0.04) and positive tuberculin skin testing (? 5 mm, P = 0.03) were associated with pulmonary TB. Women with TB were 23-fold (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 116.6) more likely to report a household member with TB symptoms (P = 0.002). WHO symptom screen (43%), acid-fast bacilli smear (0%), Xpert (43%), and lipoarabinomannan (0%) had low sensitivity but high specificity (81%, 99%, 99%, and 95%, respectively) for pulmonary TB. CONCLUSIONS:HIV-infected pregnant women had appreciable prevalence of pulmonary TB despite modest immunosuppression. Current TB screening and diagnostic tools perform poorly in pregnant HIV-infected women. Adapted TB screening tools that include household member TB symptoms may be useful in this population.
| S-EPMC4712112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Tuberculous pleurisy (TBP) is the most common form of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (TB). However, rapid diagnostic methods with high accuracy for tuberculous pleurisy are urgently needed. In the present study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF, LAMP and SAT-TB assay with pleural fluids from culture-positive TBP patients. METHODS:We prospectively enrolled 300 patients with exudative pleural effusions used as the samples for Xpert MTB/RIF, LAMP and SAT-TB assay. Of these, 265 including 223 patients diagnosed with TBP and 42 non-TBP patients used as controls were analyzed. RESULTS:The sensitivities of Xpert MTB/RIF (27.4%), LAMP (26.5%) and SAT-TB assay (32.3%) were significantly higher than that of pleural effusion smear (14.3%, X2?=?20.65, P?<? 0.001), whereas they were much lower than expected for the analysis of pleural effusion samples. Both SAT-TB assay and Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrated high specificities (100%) and PPVs (100%), but the NPVs of all of the tests were?<?22%. The area under ROC curve of pleural effusion smear, LAMP, Xpert MTB/RIF and SAT-TB assays was 0.524 (95% CI 0.431-0.617), 0.632 (95% CI 0.553-0.71), 0.637 (95% CI 0.56-0.714) and 0.673 (95% CI 0.6-0.745). SAT-TB assays had the highest AUC. CONCLUSION:Nucleic acid amplification tests are not the first choice in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy. In this type of test, SAT-TB is recommended because of its low cost, relatively more accurate compared with the other two tests. This prospective study was approved by The Ethics Committee of the Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital (approval number: K19-148). TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR1900026234 (Retrospectively registered). The registration date is September 28, 2019.
| S-EPMC7092483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with time Design Retrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort . Setting NHS outpatient clinics Participants Individuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalization Main outcome measures The sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed. Results The three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays. CONCLUSIONS:SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.
| S-EPMC7418752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) has targeted a reduction in viral hepatitis-related mortality by 65% and incidence by 90% by 2030, necessitating enhanced hepatitis B treatment and prevention programmes in low- and middle-income countries. Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status is used in the assessment of eligibility for antiviral treatment and for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT). Accordingly, the WHO has classified HBeAg rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) as essential medical devices.MethodsWe assessed the performance characteristics of three commercially available HBeAg RDTs (SD Bioline, Alere, South Africa; Creative Diagnostics, USA; and Biopanda Reagents, UK) in two hepatitis B surface antigen-positive cohorts in Blantyre, Malawi: participants of a community study (n = 100) and hospitalised patients with cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 94). Two investigators, blinded to the reference test result, independently assessed each assay. We used an enzyme-linked immunoassay (Monolisa HBeAg, Bio-Rad, France) as a reference test and quantified HBeAg concentration using dilutions of the WHO HBeAg standard. We related the findings to HBV DNA levels, and evaluated treatment eligibility using the TREAT-B score.ResultsAmong 194 HBsAg positive patients, median age was 37 years, 42% were femaleand 26% were HIV co-infected. HBeAg prevalence was 47/194 (24%). The three RDTs showed diagnostic sensitivity of 28% (95% CI 16-43), 53% (38-68) and 72% (57-84) and specificity of 96-100% for detection of HBeAg. Overall inter-rater agreement κ statistic was high at 0.9-1.0. Sensitivity for identifying patients at the threshold where antiviral treatment is recommended for PMTCT, with HBV DNA > 200,000 IU/ml (39/194; 20%), was 22, 49 and 54% respectively. Using the RDTs in place of the reference HBeAg assay resulted in 3/43 (9%), 5/43 (12%) and 8/43 (19%) of patients meeting the TREAT-B treatment criteria being misclassified as ineligible for treatment. A relationship between HBeAg concentration and HBeAg detection by RDT was observed. A minimum HBeAg concentration of 2.2-3.1 log10IU/ml was required to yield a reactive RDT.ConclusionsCommercially available HBeAg RDTs lack sufficient sensitivity to accurately classify hepatitis B patients in Malawi. This has implications for hepatitis B public health programs in sub-Saharan Africa. Alternative diagnostic assays are recommended.
| S-EPMC8157469 | biostudies-literature