Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a high-prevalence setting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Muller L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7856849 | 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:COVID19 convalescent patient plasma units with high titer neutralizing antibody can be used to treat patients with severe disease. Therefore, in order to select suitable donors, neutralizing antibody titer against SARS CoV-2 needs to be determined. Because the neutralization assay is highly demanding from several points of view, a pre-selection of sera would be desirable to minimize the number of sera to be tested. In this study, a total of 140 serum samples that had been titrated for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody by microneutralization assay were also tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibody using 5 different tests: Architect® immunoassay (Abbott Diagnostics), detecting IgG against the nucleocapsid protein, LIAISON XL® (Diasorin) detecting IgG against a recombinant form of the S1/S2 subunits of the spike protein, VITROS® (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics), detecting IgG against a recombinant form of the spike protein, and ELISA (Euroimmun AG), detecting IgA or IgG against a recombinant form of the S1 subunit. To determine which immunoassay had the highest chance to detect sera with neutralizing antibodies above a certain threshold, we compared the results obtained from the five immunoassays with the titers obtained by microneutralization assay by linear regression analysis and by using receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden's index. Our results indicate that the most suitable method to predict sera with high Nab titer is Euroimmun® IgG, followed closely by Ortho VITROS® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG.
| S-EPMC8093006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted a serological study to define correlates of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Compared to those with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, individuals with severe disease exhibited elevated virus-neutralizing titers and antibodies against the nucleocapsid (N) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein. Age and sex played lesser roles. All cases, including asymptomatic individuals, seroconverted by 2 weeks after PCR confirmation. Spike RBD and S2 and neutralizing antibodies remained detectable through 5-7 months after onset, whereas α-N titers diminished. Testing 5,882 members of the local community revealed only 1 sample with seroreactivity to both RBD and S2 that lacked neutralizing antibodies. This fidelity could not be achieved with either RBD or S2 alone. Thus, inclusion of multiple independent assays improved the accuracy of antibody tests in low-seroprevalence communities and revealed differences in antibody kinetics depending on the antigen. We conclude that neutralizing antibodies are stably produced for at least 5-7 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC7554472 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRobust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little premarket validation.MethodsPerformance characteristics for 5 PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT).ResultsSensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.1%-60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI, 89.2%-98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 96.1%-100.0%). ELISA sensitivity for IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI, 85.0%-98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI, 53.2%-68.4%), rising to 91.2% (95% CI, 81.8%-96.7%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset, with specificity 94.4% (95% CI, 89.2%-97.5%).ConclusionsPerformance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.
| S-EPMC7454699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for the identification of viral nucleic acid is the current standard for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but technical issues limit its utilization for large-scale screening. Serological immunoglobulin M (IgM)/IgG testing has been proposed as a useful tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 exposure.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to compare the results of the rapid serological VivaDiag test for SARS-CoV-2-related IgM/IgG detection with those of the standard RT-PCR laboratory test for identifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid.MethodsWe simultaneously performed both serological and molecular tests with a consecutive series of 191 symptomatic patients. The results provided by a new rapid serological colorimetric test for analyzing IgM/IgG expression were compared with those of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection.ResultsOf the 191 subjects, 70 (36.6%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR results, while 34 (17.3%) tested positive based on serological IgM/IgG expression. Additionally, 13 (6.8%) subjects tested positive based on serological test results, but also tested negative based on RT-PCR results. The rapid serological test had a sensitivity of 30% and a specificity of 89% compared to the standard RT-PCR assay. Interestingly, the performance of both assays improved 8 days after symptom appearance. After 10 days had passed since symptom appearance, the predictive value of the rapid serological test was higher than that of the standard molecular assay (proportion of positive results: 40% vs 20%). Multivariate analysis showed that age >58 years (P<.01) and period of >15 days after symptom onset (P<.02) were significant and independent factors associated with serological test positivity.ConclusionsThe rapid serological test analyzed in this study seems limited in terms of usefulness when diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it may be useful for providing relevant information on people's immunoreaction to COVID-19 exposure.
| S-EPMC7641647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 virus was first detected in late 2019 and circulated globally, causing COVID-19, which is characterised by sub-clinical to severe disease in humans. Here, we investigate the serological antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection during acute and convalescent infection using a cohort of (i) COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital, (ii) healthy individuals who had experienced 'COVID-19 like-illness', and (iii) a cohort of healthy individuals prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. We compare SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody detection rates from four different serological methods, virus neutralisation test (VNT), ID Screen® SARS-CoV-2-N IgG ELISA, Whole Antigen ELISA, and lentivirus-based SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype virus neutralisation tests (pVNT). All methods were able to detect prior infection with COVID-19, albeit with different relative sensitivities. The VNT and SARS-CoV-2-N ELISA methods showed a strong correlation yet provided increased detection rates when used in combination. A pVNT correlated strongly with SARS-CoV-2 VNT and was able to effectively discriminate SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive and negative serum with the same efficiency as the VNT. Moreover, the pVNT was performed with the same level of discrimination across multiple separate institutions. Therefore, the pVNT is a sensitive, specific, and reproducible lower biosafety level alternative to VNT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for diagnostic and research applications. Our data illustrate the potential utility of applying VNT or pVNT and ELISA antibody tests in parallel to enhance the sensitivity of exposure to infection.
| S-EPMC8074400 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats.ObjectivesReal-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI®, BIORAD®, EUROIMMUN®, ABBOTT® and LIAISON®).ResultsFor hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI® to 69 % for LIAISON®). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses.ConclusionIn conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient's expectations in the face of this health crisis.
| S-EPMC7396207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current serological tests cannot differentiate between total immunoglobulin A (IgA) and dimeric IgA (dIgA) associated with mucosal immunity. Here, we describe two new assays, dIgA-ELISA and dIgA-multiplex bead assay (MBA), that utilize the preferential binding of dIgA to a chimeric form of secretory component, allowing the differentiation between dIgA and monomeric IgA. dIgA responses elicited through severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were measured in (i) a longitudinal panel, consisting of 74 samples (n = 20 individuals) from hospitalized cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); (ii) a longitudinal panel, consisting of 96 samples (n = 10 individuals) from individuals with mild COVID-19; (iii) a cross-sectional panel with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with mild COVID-19 (n = 199) and (iv) pre-COVID-19 samples (n = 200). The dIgA-ELISA and dIgA-MBA demonstrated a specificity for dIgA of 99% and 98.5%, respectively. Analysis of dIgA responses in the longitudinal panels revealed that 70% (ELISA) and 50% (MBA) of patients elicited a dIgA response by day 20 after PCR diagnosis with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Individuals with mild COVID-19 displayed increased levels of dIgA within the first 3 weeks after diagnosis but responses appeared to be short lived, compared with sustained IgA levels. However, in samples from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 we observed high and sustained levels of dIgA, up to 245 days after PCR diagnosis. Our results suggest that severe COVID-19 infections are associated with sustained levels of plasma dIgA compared with mild cases.
| S-EPMC10952984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assist public health responses to COVID-19, wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is being utilised internationally to monitor SARS-CoV-2 infections at the community level. However, questions remain regarding the sensitivity of WBE and its use in low prevalence settings. In this study, we estimated the total number of COVID-19 cases required for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater. To do this, we leveraged a unique situation where, over a 4-month period, all symptomatic and asymptomatic cases, in a population of approximately 120,000, were precisely known and mainly located in a single managed isolation and quarantine facility (MIQF) building. From 9 July to 6 November 2020, 24-hr composite wastewater samples (n = 113) were collected daily from the sewer outside the MIQF, and from the municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) located 5 km downstream. New daily COVID-19 cases at the MIQF ranged from 0 to 17, and for most of the study period there were no cases outside the MIQF identified. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 54.0% (61/113) at the WWTP, compared to 95.6% (108/113) at the MIQF. We used logistic regression to estimate the shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA into wastewater based on four infectious shedding models. With a total of 5 and 10 COVID-19 infectious cases per 100,000 population (0.005% and 0.01% prevalence) the predicated probability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection at the WWTP was estimated to be 28 and 41%, respectively. When a proportional shedding model was used, this increased to 58% and 87% for 5 and 10 cases, respectively. In other words, when 10 individuals were actively shedding SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a catchment of 100,000 individuals, there was a high likelihood of detecting viral RNA in wastewater. SARS-CoV-2 RNA detections at the WWTP were associated with increasing COVID-19 cases. Our results show that WBE provides a reliable and sensitive platform for detecting infections at the community scale, even when case prevalence is low, and can be of use as an early warning system for community outbreaks.
| S-EPMC8720482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 infection are now widely available for use in diagnostic laboratories. Limited data are available on the performance characteristics in different settings, and at time periods remote from the initial infection. Validation of the Abbott (Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG), DiaSorin (Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG) and Roche (Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2) assays was undertaken utilising 217 serum samples from 131 participants up to 7 months following COVID-19 infection. The Abbott and DiaSorin assays were implemented into routine laboratory workflow, with outcomes reported for 2764 clinical specimens. Sensitivity and specificity were concordant with the range reported by the manufacturers for all assays. Sensitivity across the convalescent period was highest for the Roche at 95.2-100% (95% CI 81.0-100%), then the DiaSorin at 88.1-100% (95% CI 76.0-100%), followed by the Abbott 68.2-100% (95% CI 53.4-100%). Sensitivity of the Abbott assay fell from approximately 5 months; on this assay paired serum samples for 45 participants showed a significant drop in the signal-to-cut-off ratio and 10 sero-reversion events. When used in clinical practice, all samples testing positive by both DiaSorin and Abbott assays were confirmed as true positive results. In this low prevalence setting, despite high laboratory specificity, the positive predictive value of a single positive assay was low. Comprehensive validation of serological assays is necessary to determine the optimal assay for each diagnostic setting. In this low prevalence setting we found implementation of two assays with different antibody targets maximised sensitivity and specificity, with confirmatory testing necessary for any sample which was positive in only one assay.
| S-EPMC8289701 | biostudies-literature