Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serology assays reveals a range of test performance.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Whitman JD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7740072 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Serological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. We conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. Among specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. Our evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies.
| S-EPMC7273265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWe have previously highlighted the fact that hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests were released months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the hundreds of studies investigating the test kits' performance, few were comparative reports, using the same comprehensive sample set across multiple tests. Recently, we reported a comparative assessment of 35 rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for use in low- and middle-income countries, using a large sample set from individuals with a history of COVID-19. Only a few tests meet WHO Target Product Profile performance requirements. This study reports on the performance of a further 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays using the same panel of samples. The results highlight the better analytical and clinical performance of automated serology test kits compared with RDTs, and the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostic and epidemiological investigations.
| S-EPMC10783060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%; P ≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%; P ≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%; P ≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (P < 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.
| S-EPMC7771444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report evaluation of 30 assays' (17 rapid tests (RDTs) and 13 automated/manual ELISA/CLIA assay (IAs)) clinical performances with 2594 sera collected from symptomatic patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR on a respiratory sample, and 1996 pre-epidemic serum samples expected to be negative. Only 4 RDT and 3 IAs fitted both specificity (> 98%) and sensitivity (> 90%) criteria according to French recommendations. Serology may offer valuable information during COVID-19 pandemic, but inconsistent performances observed among the 30 commercial assays evaluated, which underlines the importance of independent evaluation before clinical implementation.
| S-EPMC8007057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether a positive serology result correlates with protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. There are also concerns regarding the low positive predictive value of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, especially when testing populations with low disease prevalence.MethodsA neutralization assay was validated in a set of PCR-confirmed positive specimens and in a negative cohort. In addition, 9530 specimens were screened using the Diazyme SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology assay and all positive results (N = 164 individuals) were reanalyzed using the neutralization assay, the Roche total immunoglobin assay, and the Abbott IgG assay. The relationship between the magnitude of a positive SARS-CoV-2 serology result and neutralizing activity was determined. Neutralizing antibody titers (50% inhibitory dilution, ID50) were also longitudinally monitored in patients confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.ResultsThe SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay had a positive percentage agreement (PPA) of 96.6% with a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and a negative percentage agreement (NPA) of 98.0% across 100 negative control individuals. ID50 neutralization titers positively correlated with all 3 clinical serology platforms. Longitudinal monitoring of hospitalized PCR-confirmed patients with COVID-19 demonstrated they made high neutralization titers against SARS-CoV-2. PPA between the Diazyme IgG assay alone and the neutralization assay was 50.6%, while combining the Diazyme IgG assay with either the Roche or Abbott platforms increased the PPA to 79.2 and 78.4%, respectively.ConclusionsThese 3 clinical serology assays positively correlate with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity observed in patients with COVID-19. All patients confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR develop neutralizing antibodies.
| S-EPMC7665417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the comparability of WHO standard referenced commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests over three doses of BNT162b2 vaccine and up to 14 months.Methods114 subjects (without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or immunosuppressive medication) vaccinated with three doses of BNT162b2 were included in this study. Antibody levels were quantified 3 weeks after the first dose, 5-6 weeks and 7 months after the second dose, and 4-5 weeks and 4 months after the third dose using the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S, the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant, the DiaSorin LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, the GenScript cPASS sVNT and the TECO sVNT assays.ResultsFor each time point analyzed, systematic differences are evident between the results in BAU/mL of the three antibody binding assays. The assay ratios change in a time-dependent manner even beyond administering the third dose (Roche measuring 9 and 3 times higher than Abbott and DiaSorin, respectively). However, changes decrease in magnitude with increasing time intervals from the first dose. IgG-based assays show better agreement across them than with Roche (overall correlations: Abbott x DiaSorin: ρ = 0.94 vs. Abbott x Roche: ρ=0.89, p < 0.0001; DiaSorin x Roche: ρ = 0.87, p < 0.0001), but results are not interchangeable. The sVNTs suggest an underestimation of antibody levels by Roche and slight overestimation by both IgG assays after the first vaccine dose.ConclusionsStandardization of SARS-CoV-2 antibody binding assays still needs to be improved to allow reliable use of variable assay systems for longitudinal analyses.
| S-EPMC9694346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSerological testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) complements nucleic acid tests for patient diagnosis and enables monitoring of population susceptibility to inform the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response. It is important to understand the reliability of assays with different antigen or antibody targets to detect humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to understand how antibody (Ab) binding assays compare to those detecting neutralizing antibody (nAb), particularly as we move into the era of vaccines.MethodsWe evaluated the performance of 6 commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), including a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), for detection of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins (IgA, IgM, IgG), total or nAb. A result subset was compared with a cell culture-based microneutralization (MN) assay. We tested sera from patients with prior reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, prepandemic sera, and potential cross-reactive sera from patients with other non-COVID-19 acute infections.ResultsFor sera collected >14 days post-symptom onset, the assay achieving the highest sensitivity was the Wantai total Ab at 100% (95% CI, 94.6%-100%), followed by 93.1% for Euroimmun NCP-IgG, 93.1% for GenScript sVNT, 90.3% for Euroimmun S1-IgG, 88.9% for Euroimmun S1-IgA, and 83.3% for Wantai IgM. Specificity for the best-performing assay was 99.5% for the Wantai total Ab, and for the lowest-performing assay it was 97.1% for sVNT (as per the Instructions for Use [IFU]). The Wantai Total Ab had the best agreement with MN at 98% followed by Euroimmun S1-IgA, Euro NCP-IgG, and sVNT (as per IFU) with 97%, 97% and 95%, respectively; Wantai IgM had the poorest agreement at 93%.ConclusionsPerformance characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 serology assays detecting different antibody types are consistent with those found in previously published reports. Evaluation of the surrogate virus neutralization test in comparison to the Ab binding assays and a cell culture-based neutralization assay showed good result correlation between all assays. However, correlation between the cell-based neutralization test and some assays detecting Ab's not specifically involved in neutralization was higher than with the sVNT. This study demonstrates the reliability of different assays to detect the humoral immune response following SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be used to optimize serological test algorithms for assessing antibody responses post-SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination.
| S-EPMC8136026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn Israeli national taskforce performed a multi-center clinical and analytical validation of seven serology assays to determine their utility and limitations for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.MethodsSerology assays from Roche, Abbott, Diasorin, BioMerieux, Beckman-Coulter, Siemens, and an in-house RBD ELISA were included. Negative samples from 2391 individuals representative of the Israeli population, and 698 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive patients, collected between March and May 2020, were analyzed.FindingsImmunoassays sensitivities between 81.5%-89.4% and specificities between 97.7%-100% resulted in a profound impact on the expected Positive Predictive Value (PPV) in low (<15%) prevalence scenarios. No meaningful increase was detected in the false positive rate in children compared to adults. A positive correlation between disease severity and antibody titers, and no decrease in antibody titers in the first 8 weeks after PCR positivity was observed. We identified a subgroup of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (~5% of patients), who remained seronegative across a wide range of antigens, isotypes, and technologies.InterpretationThe commercially available automated immunoassays exhibit significant differences in performance and expected PPV in low prevalence scenarios. The low false-positivity rate in under 20's suggests that cross-reactive immunity from previous CoV strains is unlikely to explain the milder disease course in children. Finding no decrease in antibody titers in the first 8 weeks is in contrast to some reports of short half-life for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The ~5% who were seronegative non-responders, using multiple assays in a population-wide manner, represents the proportion of patients that may be at risk for re-infection.FundingIsrael Ministry of Health.
| S-EPMC7676374 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe global market for SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays is becoming ever more crowded with antibody-tests of various formats, targets and technologies, careful evaluation is crucial for understanding the implications of individual test results. Here, we evaluate the clinical performance of five automated immunoassays on a set of clinical samples.MethodsSerum/plasma samples of 75 confirmed COVID-19 patients and 320 pre-pandemic serum samples of healthy blood donors were subjected to two IgG and three total antibody SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays. All test setups were automated workflows.ResultsPositivity of assays (onset of symptoms > 10 days) ranged between 68.4 % and 81.6 % (Diasorin 68.4 %, Euroimmun 70.3 %, Siemens 73.7 %, Roche 79.0 % and Wantai 81.6 %). All examined assays demonstrated high specificity of >99 % (Euroimmun, Diasorin: 99.1 %, Wantai: 99.4 %) but only two reached levels above 99.5 % (Roche: 99.7 %, Siemens 100 %). Interestingly, there was no overlap in false positive results between the assays. The strongest correlation of quantitative results was observed between the Diasorin and Euroimmun IgG tests (r2 = 0.76). Overall, we observed no difference in the distribution of test results between female and male patients (p-values: 0.18-0.87). A significant difference between severely versus critically ill patients was demonstrated for the Euroimmun, Diasorin, Wantai and Siemens assays (p-values:0.041).ConclusionAll assays showed good clinical performance. Our data confirm that orthogonal test strategies as recommended by the CDC can enhance clinical specificity. However, the suboptimal rates of test positivity found at time of hospitalization in this cohort underline the importance of molecular diagnostics to rule out/confirm active infection with SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7367003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAs the world transitions into a new era of the COVID-19 pandemic in which vaccines become available, there is an increasing demand for rapid reliable serological testing to identify individuals with levels of immunity considered protective by infection or vaccination.MethodsWe used 34 SARS-CoV-2 samples to perform a rapid surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT), applicable to many laboratories as it circumvents the need for biosafety level-3 containment. We correlated results from the sVNT with five additional commonly used SARS-CoV-2 serology techniques: the microneutralisation test (MNT), in-house ELISAs, commercial Euroimmun- and Wantai-based ELISAs (RBD, spike and nucleoprotein; IgG, IgA and IgM), antigen-binding avidity, and high-throughput multiplex analyses to profile isotype, subclass and Fc effector binding potential. We correlated antibody levels with antibody-secreting cell (ASC) and circulatory T follicular helper (cTfh) cell numbers.ResultsAntibody data obtained with commercial ELISAs closely reflected results using in-house ELISAs against RBD and spike. A correlation matrix across ten measured ELISA parameters revealed positive correlations for all factors. The frequency of inhibition by rapid sVNT strongly correlated with spike-specific IgG and IgA titres detected by both commercial and in-house ELISAs, and MNT titres. Multiplex analyses revealed strongest correlations between IgG, IgG1, FcR and C1q specific to spike and RBD. Acute cTfh-type 1 cell numbers correlated with spike and RBD-specific IgG antibodies measured by ELISAs and sVNT.ConclusionOur comprehensive analyses provide important insights into SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity across distinct serology assays and their applicability for specific research and/or diagnostic questions to assess SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses.
| S-EPMC7916820 | biostudies-literature