Performance assessment of 11 commercial serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 on hospitalised COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Commercial availability of serological tests to evaluate immunoglobulins (Ig) targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has grown exponentially since the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Thorough validation of these tests is important before use as epidemiological tools to infer seroprevalence in specific populations and as diagnostic tools to complement molecular approaches (e.g., quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction).Methods
Commercial serological tests from 11 suppliers were assayed side-by-side using 126 samples from SARS-CoV-2-infected inpatients and 36 from healthy and HIV-infected individuals.Results
The majority of the tests assayed have >95% specificity. For the sensitivity calculation, samples were stratified by days since symptoms onset; sensitivity peaks at 16-21 days for IgM and IgA (maximum 91.2%, Euroimmun) and, dependant on the test, at 16-21 or >21 days for IgG (maximum 94.1%, Snibe). Data from semiquantitative tests show that patients with a severe clinical presentation have lower levels of Ig targeting SARS-CoV-2 at <10 days since symptoms onset and higher levels at >21 days, compared to patients with a non-severe presentation.Conclusions
This study highlights the heterogeneity of sensitivity and generally high specificity of the serological tests and establishes a basis for their usefulness to complement diagnostic techniques and population seroprevalence studies.
SUBMITTER: Serre-Miranda C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7817432 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic performance of lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) of 4 different manufacturers to identify SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgM, IgG, or total), comparing them with the nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) or the clinical defined test (definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively).MethodsOne hundred nineteen serum samples were randomly selected by convenience and distributed in the following groups: (1) group with SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 82; RT-qPCR positive [definite, n = 70] and probable [n = 12]); (2) other diseases (n = 27; other viruses identified [n = 8] and SARS of other etiologies [n = 19]); and (3) healthy control group (n = 10). LFAs of 4 manufacturers were compared: MedTest Coronavirus (COVID-19) IgG/IgM (MedLevensohn, Brazil); COVID-19 IgG/IgM ECO Test (Ecodiagnóstica, Brazil); Camtech COVID-19 IgM/IgG Rapid Test Kit (Camtech Diagnostics Pte Ltd, Singapore); and 1-Step COVID-19 Test for total antibodies (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech Co., China).ResultsThe 4 tests studied showed high diagnostic performance characteristics for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. The best measures were for the Wondfo test: sensitivity (86.59%; 95% CI: 77.26-93.11%), specificity (100%; 90.51-100%), DOR (257; 60-1,008), LR+ (33.43; 4.82-231.85), LR- (0.13; 0.08-0.23), accuracy (90.76%; 84.06-95.29%), and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.82. Although considering only the probable SARS-CoV-2 infection (PCR-) cases, all the kits studied showed limited values.ConclusionOur data demonstrate the excellent performance of LFA for the diagnoses of definite or probable SARS-CoV-2 infection. There was substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgM and IgG antibodies among the different kits. LFA tests cannot replace molecular diagnostics but should be used as an additional screening tool.
| S-EPMC8339017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAssess the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests (RST) using finger prick (FP) blood on-site to evaluate their usability for exposure assessment in population-based seroprevalence studies.Study designSince cross-reactivity with common cold human coronaviruses occurs, serological testing includes a risk of false-positive results. Therefore, the selected cohort for RST-validation was based on combined immunoassay (presence of specific antibodies) and RT-qPCR (presence of SARS-CoV-2) data. RST-performance for FP blood and serum was assessed by performing each RST in two groups, namely SARSCoV- 2 positive (n=108) and negative healthcare workers (n=89). Differences in accuracy and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated for a range (1-50%) of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates.ResultsThe OrientGene showed overall acceptable performance, with sensitivities of 94.4% and 100%, and specificities of 96.6% and 94.4%, using FP blood and serum, respectively. Although three RST reach optimal specificities (100%), the OrientGene clearly outperforms in sensitivity. At a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence rate of 40%, this RST outperforms the other tests in NPV (96.3%) and reaches comparable PPV (94.9%). Although the specificity of the Covid-Presto is excellent when using FP blood or serum (100% and 97.8%, respectively), its sensitivity decreases when using FP blood (76.9%) compared to serum (98.1%).ConclusionsPerformances of the evaluated RST differ largely. Only one out of five RST (OrientGene) had acceptable sensitivity and specificity using FP blood. Therefore, the latter could be used for seroprevalence studies in a high-prevalence situation. The OrientGene, which measures anti-RBD antibodies, can be valuable after vaccination as well.
| S-EPMC8282933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple companies marketed serological tests. Rigorous, independent and comparative performances of these assays on defined clinical specimens are needed.MethodsIn a first preliminary phase, we investigated 16 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological ELISA using a panel of 180 sera, comprising 97 sera from patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 83 negative sera sampled before November 1, 2019. In a second phase and to complete the evaluation on the full panel (100 positive and 300 negative), tests that passed pre-defined exclusion criteria of 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity were further evaluated on 220 additional sera chosen to assess possible cross-reactivity with other human viral infections.ResultsAmong the 16 tests evaluated in the preliminary phase, two were excluded due to insufficient sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and one was excluded due to poor specificity. Of the 13 tests evaluated using the full panel comprised of a diverse pool of sera including those reactive against known respiratory viruses, no systematic cross-reactivity was observed. However, heterogeneities across tests were found. Consistent with kinetics of antibody expression, maximal sensitivity was found two weeks post-symptom onset.ConclusionIn this independent evaluation, we compared the performance of 16 SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using well-characterized sera and found 13 tests with more than 90% sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and 97% specificity across a diverse range of negative samples.
| S-EPMC8295192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThese last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests available in April 2020 in Switzerland.MethodsIn a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other viruses.ResultsIn the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, five had a sensitivity and specificity above 90 % and 98 % respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no test showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response.ConclusionsThe majority of the evaluated tests exhibited high performances of IgG/pan-Ig sensitivity and specificity to detect the serological response of moderately to critically ill hospitalized patients. The IgM and IgA tests showed mostly insufficient performances with no added value for the early diagnostic on the cohort tested in this study.
| S-EPMC7670982 | biostudies-literature
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: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:BackgroundSerological severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays differ in the target antigen specificity, e.g. of antibodies directed against the viral spike or the nucleocapsid protein, and in the spectrum of detected immunoglobulins. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of two different routinely used immunoassays in hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases.MethodsThe test characteristics of commercially available spike1 protein-based serological assays (Euroimmun, EI-assays), determining IgA or IgG and nucleocapsid-based assays (Virotech, VT-assays) determining IgA, IgM or IgG were compared in 139 controls and 116 hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases.ResultsHospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 51; 115 samples) showed significantly higher concentrations of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and differed from outpatient cases (n = 65) by higher age, higher disease severity scores and earlier follow up blood sampling. Sensitivity of the two IgG assays was comparable in hospitalized patients tested ≥ 14 days (EI-assay: 88%, CI95% 67.6-99.9; VT-assay: 96%, CI95% 77.7-99.8). In outpatient COVID-19 cases sensitivity was significantly lower in the VT-assay (86.2%, CI95% 74.8-93.1) compared with the EI-assay (98.5%, CI95% 90.6-99.9). Assays for IgA and IgM demonstrated a lack of specificity or sensitivity.ConclusionsOur results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 serological assays may need to be optimized to produce reliable results in outpatient COVID-19 cases who are low or even asymptomatic. Assays for IgA and IgM have limited diagnostic performance and do not prove an additional value for population-based screening approaches.
| S-EPMC7642750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the influx of immunoassays for the detection of antibodies towards severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) into the global market. The Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network Serology Task Force undertook a nationwide evaluation of twelve laboratory and 6 point-of-care based commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We determined that there was considerable variability in the performance of individual tests and that an orthogonal testing algorithm should be prioritized to maximize the accuracy and comparability of results across the country. The manual enzyme immunoassays and point-of-care tests evaluated had lower specificity and increased coefficients of variation compared to automated enzyme immunoassays platforms putting into question their utility for large-scale sero-surveillance. Overall, the data presented here provide a comprehensive approach for applying accurate serological assays for longitudinal sero-surveillance and vaccine trials while informing Canadian public health policy.
| S-EPMC8377389 | 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:BackgroundViral diversity presents an ongoing challenge for diagnostic tests, which need to accurately detect all circulating variants. The Abbott Global Surveillance program monitors severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and their impact on diagnostic test performance.ObjectivesTo evaluate the capacity of Abbott molecular, antigen, and serologic assays to detect circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, including all current variants of concern (VOC): B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta), P.1 (gamma) and B.1.617.2 (delta).Study designDilutions of variant virus cultures (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.429, B.1.526.1, B.1.526.2, B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, P.1, R.1 and control isolate WA1) and a panel of N = 248 clinical samples from patients with sequence confirmed variant infections (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.427, B.1.429, B.1.526, B.1.526.1, B.1.526.2, P.1, P.2, R.1) were evaluated on at least one assay: Abbott ID NOW COVID-19, m2000 RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex molecular assays; the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device; and the ARCHITECT/Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG and AdviseDx IgM assays, Panbio COVID-19 IgG assay, and ARCHITECT/Alinity i AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay.ResultsConsistent with in silico predictions, each molecular and antigen assay detected VOC virus cultures with equivalent sensitivity to the WA1 control strain. Notably, 100% of all tested variant patient specimens were detected by molecular assays (N = 197 m2000, N = 88 Alinity m, N = 99 ID NOW), and lateral flow assays had a sensitivity of >94% for specimens with genome equivalents (GE) per device above 4 log (85/88, Panbio; 54/57 Binax). Furthermore, Abbott antibody assays detected IgG and IgM in 94-100% of sera from immune competent B.1.1.7 patients 15-26 days after symptom onset.ConclusionsThese data confirm variant detection for 11 SARS-CoV-2 assays, which is consistent with each assay target region being highly conserved. Importantly, alpha, beta, gamma, and delta VOCs were detected by molecular and antigen assays, indicating that these tests may be suitable for widescale use where VOCs predominate.
| S-EPMC8770247 | biostudies-literature