Dataset Information

Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a high-prevalence setting.

ABSTRACT: Evaluation and power of seroprevalence studies depend on the performed serological assays. The aim of this study was to assess four commercial serological tests from EUROIMMUN, DiaSorin, Abbott, and Roche as well as an in-house immunofluorescence and neutralization test for their capability to identify SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals in a high-prevalence setting. Therefore, 42 social and working contacts of a German super-spreader were tested. Consistent with a high-prevalence setting, 26 of 42 were SARS-CoV-2 seropositive by neutralization test (NT), and immunofluorescence test (IFT) confirmed 23 of these 26 positive test results (NT 61.9% and IFT 54.8% seroprevalence). Four commercial assays detected anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 33.3-40.5% individuals. Besides an overall discrepancy between the NT and the commercial assays regarding their sensitivity, this study revealed that commercial SARS-CoV-2 spike-based assays are better to predict the neutralization titer than nucleoprotein-based assays are.

SUBMITTER: Muller L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7856849 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a high-prevalence setting.

Müller Lisa L Ostermann Philipp Niklas PN Walker Andreas A Wienemann Tobias T Mertens Alexander A Adams Ortwin O Andree Marcel M Hauka Sandra S Lübke Nadine N Keitel Verena V Drexler Ingo I Di Cristanziano Veronica V Hermsen Derik Franz DF Kaiser Rolf R Boege Friedrich F Klein Florian F Schaal Heiner H Timm Jörg J Senff Tina T

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 20210203 5

Evaluation and power of seroprevalence studies depend on the performed serological assays. The aim of this study was to assess four commercial serological tests from EUROIMMUN, DiaSorin, Abbott, and Roche as well as an in-house immunofluorescence and neutralization test for their capability to identify SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals in a high-prevalence setting. Therefore, 42 social and working contacts of a German super-spreader were tested. Consistent with a high-prevalence setting, 26 of ...[more]

PMID: 33534090

Similar Datasets

Project description:The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in hundreds of in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) coming to market, facilitated by regulatory authorities allowing "emergency use" without a comprehensive evaluation of performance. The World Health Organization (WHO) released target product profiles (TPPs) specifying acceptable performance characteristics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay devices. We evaluated 26 rapid diagnostic tests and 9 enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-SARS-CoV-2, suitable for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), against these TPPs and other performance characteristics. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 60.1 to 100% and 56.0 to 100%, respectively. Five of 35 test kits reported no false reactivity for 55 samples with potentially cross-reacting substances. Six test kits reported no false reactivity for 35 samples containing interfering substances, and only one test reported no false reactivity with samples positive for other coronaviruses (not SARS-CoV-2). This study demonstrates that a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of test kits against defined specifications is essential for the selection of test kits, especially in a pandemic setting. IMPORTANCE The markets have been flooded with hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, and although there are many published reports on their performance, comparative reports are far fewer and tend to be limited to only a few tests. In this report, we comparatively assessed 35 rapid diagnostic tests or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) using a large set of samples from individuals with a history of mild to moderate COVID-19, commensurate with the target population for serosurveillance, which included serum samples from individuals previously infected, at undetermined time periods, with other seasonal human coronaviruses, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and SARS-CoV-1. The significant heterogeneity in their performances, with only a few tests meeting WHO target product profile performance requirements, highlights the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.

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.

Dataset Information

Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a high-prevalence setting.

Publications

Sensitivity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in a high-prevalence setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets