Evaluation of 18 commercial serological assays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in paired serum samples.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hanssen DAT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7968571 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:It is of paramount importance to evaluate the prevalence of both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and their differing antibody response profiles. Here, we performed a pilot study of four serological assays to assess the amounts of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples obtained from 491 healthy individuals before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, 51 individuals hospitalized with COVID-19, 209 suspected cases of COVID-19 with mild symptoms, and 200 healthy blood donors. We used two ELISA assays that recognized the full-length nucleoprotein (N) or trimeric spike (S) protein ectodomain of SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we developed the S-Flow assay that recognized the S protein expressed at the cell surface using flow cytometry, and the luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) assay that recognized diverse SARS-CoV-2 antigens including the S1 domain and the carboxyl-terminal domain of N by immunoprecipitation. We obtained similar results with the four serological assays. Differences in sensitivity were attributed to the technique and the antigen used. High anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers were associated with neutralization activity, which was assessed using infectious SARS-CoV-2 or lentiviral-S pseudotype virus. In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, seroconversion and virus neutralization occurred between 5 and 14 days after symptom onset, confirming previous studies. Seropositivity was detected in 32% of mildly symptomatic individuals within 15 days of symptom onset and in 3% of healthy blood donors. The four antibody assays that we used enabled a broad evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and antibody profiling in different subpopulations within one region.
| S-EPMC7665313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Past severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is an important determinant of protection from reinfection and of postvaccine immune responses. Herein, we conducted a follow-up analysis of health care workers previously infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with the aim of evaluating different immunoassays for their capability in detecting the waning anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses and accuracy in documenting past SARS-CoV-2 infections. We evaluated serum antinucleocapsid antibody levels in convalescent individuals following a 1.5-year interval from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three different commercial immunoassays that qualitatively measure serum antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein, namely, the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG, the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG, and the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2, were tested for comparison of detectability. A total of 38 individuals consented to participating in this follow-up analysis. From assay to assay, seropositivity rate at 18 months from infection varied from lowest at 42% to highest at 92%. The Roche Elecsys immunoassay, dependent on the dual-antigen antibody detection method and tuned for the detection of high avidity antibodies, was most capable of accurately documenting past SARS-CoV-2 infections. Different immunoassays showed variable capability of determining previous infection status under waning antibody concentrations. Immunoassays with lower detection limits are to be selected, and adjusted thresholds are to be considered in order to maximize the tests' performance. IMPORTANCE Past SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important determinant of protection from reinfection and of postvaccine immune responses. Our results show that different immunoassays, by design, harbor variable capability of tracking SARS-CoV-2 infection under waning antibody concentrations. With each recovered patient standing at a unique time point along the decline curve of antibodies, precise estimation of COVID-19 cumulative incidence remains a challenge. Since future surveillance studies will be targeting more than ever heterogenous cohorts, selecting the appropriate immunoassay is crucial in order to assure reliable decisions about an individual's previous infection status.
| S-EPMC9430644 | 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: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: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: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:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread globally. Although several rapid commercial serological assays have been developed, little is known about their performance and accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patient samples. Here, we have evaluated the performance of seven commercially available rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) obtained from different manufacturers, and compared them to in-house developed and validated ELISA assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all evaluated LFIA assays showed high specificity, our data showed a significant variation in sensitivity of these assays, which ranged from 0% to 54% for samples collected early during infection (3-7 days post symptoms onset) and from 54% to 88% for samples collected at later time points during infection (8-27 days post symptoms onset). Therefore, we recommend prior evaluation and validation of these assays before being routinely used to detect IgM and IgG in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, our findings suggest the use of LFIA assays in combination with other standard methods, and not as an alternative.
| S-EPMC7767212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The increasing COVID-19 widespread has created the necessity to assess the diagnostic accuracy of newly introduced (RT-PCR based) assays for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in respiratory tract samples. We compared the results of the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay with those of the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay and the Quanty COVID-19 assay, respectively, all performed on 125 nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples of patients with COVID-19 suspicion. Fifty-four samples were positive, and 71 were negative with the Allplex™ assay, whereas 47 of 54 samples were also positive with the Simplexa™ assay. The Quanty assay detected 55 positive samples, including the 54 positive samples with the Allplex™ assay and 1 sample that was Allplex™ negative but Simplexa™ positive. Using a consensus result criterion as the reference standard allowed to resolve the eight samples with discordant results (one Allplex™ negative and seven Simplexa™ negative) as truly false negative. Interestingly, a Spearman's negative association was found between the viral RNA loads quantified by the Quanty assay and the CT values of RT PCRs performed with either the Allplex™ assay or the Simplexa™ assay. However, the strength of this association was higher for the Allplex™ assay (N gene, ρ = - 0.92; RdRP gene, ρ = - 0.91) than for the Simplexa™ assay (ORF1ab gene, ρ = - 0.65; S gene, ρ = - 0.80). The Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, and the Quanty COVID-19 assays yielded comparable results. However, the role these assays might play in future clinical practice warrants larger comparison studies.
| S-EPMC7471581 | 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:BackgroundThe performance of the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgM, Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgA, Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA, and Trillium IgG/IgM rapid assays was evaluated in Jamaica.MethodsDiagnostic sensitivities of the assays were assessed by testing serum samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed persons and diagnostic specificity was assessed by testing serum samples collected during 2018-2019 from healthy persons and from persons with antibodies to a wide range of viral infections.ResultsSerum samples collected ≥14 days after onset of symptoms, or an initial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive test for asymptomatics, showed diagnostic sensitivities ranging from 67.9 to 75.0% when including all possible disease severities and increased to 90.0-95.0% when examining those with moderate to critical disease. Grouping moderate to critical disease showed a significant association with a SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive result for all assays. Diagnostic specificity ranged from 96.7 to 100.0%. For all assays examined, SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values of the initial nasopharyngeal swab sample testing positive were significantly different for samples testing antibody positive versus negative.ConclusionsThese data from a predominantly African descent Caribbean population show comparable diagnostic sensitivities and specificities for all testing platforms assessed and limited utility of these tests for persons with asymptomatic and mild infections.
| S-EPMC7891043 | biostudies-literature