Diagnostic and analytical performance evaluation of ten commercial assays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 humoral immune response.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
Analytical validation of newly released SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays in the clinical laboratory is crucial to ensure sufficient performance in respect to its intended use. We aimed to assess analytical and diagnostic performance of 8 (semi-)quantitative assays detecting anti-nucleocapsid IgG (Euroimmun, Id-Vet) or total Ig (Roche), anti-spike protein IgG (Euroimmun, Theradiag, DiaSorin, Thermo Fisher) or both (Theradiag) and 2 rapid lateral flow assays (LFA) (AAZ-LMB and Theradiag).Methods
Specificity was evaluated using a cross-reactivity panel of 85 pre-pandemic serum samples. Sensitivity was determined at both the manufacturer's and a 95% specificity cut-off level, using 81 serum samples of patients with a positive rRT-PCR. Sensitivity was determined in function of time post symptoms onset.Results
Specificity for all assays ranged from 92.9% to 100% (Roche and Thermo Fisher) with the exception of the Theradiag IgM LFA (82.4%). Sensitivity in asymptomatic patients ranged between 41.7% and 58.3%. Sensitivity on samples taken <10 days since symptom onset was low (23.3%-66.7%) and increased on samples taken between 10 and 20 days and > 20 days since symptom onset (80%-96% and 92.9%-100%, respectively). From 20 days after symptom onset, the Roche, Id-vet and Thermo Fisher assays all met the sensitivity (>95%) and specificity (>97%) targets determined by the WHO. Antibody signal response was significantly higher in the critically ill patient group.Conclusion
Antibody detection can complement rRT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19, especially in the later stage, or in asymptomatic patients for epidemiological purposes. Addition of IgM in LFAs did not improve sensitivity.
SUBMITTER: Mylemans M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7989098 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first isolated from Wuhan city, China and within three months, the global community was challenged with a devastating pandemic. The rapid spread of the virus challenged diagnostic laboratories to rapidly develop molecular diagnostic methods. As SARS CoV-2 assays became available for testing on existing molecular platforms, laboratories devoted unprecedented energy and resources into evaluating the analytical performance of the new tests and in some cases developed their own diagnostic assays under FDA-EUA guidance. This study compares the validation of three different molecular assays at the Johns Hopkins Molecular Virology laboratory: the RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, ePlex® SARS-CoV-2, and the CDC COVID-19 RT-PCR tests. Overall, our studies indicate a comparable analytical performance of the three assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7194987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo cope with the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, several rapid nucleic acid assays have been approved for use, but the analytical performance has not been well evaluated. In this report, two key performance parameters, analytical sensitivity (limit of detection) and reproducibility, of three approved rapid nucleic acid assays were assessed using heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 culture supernatants quantified by digital PCR.MethodsThe LOD (limit of detection) and reproducibility of three approved rapid nucleic acid assays using their own instruments were assessed, while the LOD and reproducibility of two assays on a 7500 Real-Time instrument were assessed at the same time.ResultsUsing their own instruments, 100% of samples with 1150 copies/mL viral RNA could be detected by the Da An and Coyote assays, while 90% of samples could be detected by the Ustar assay; yet, for 525 copies/mL and 287.5 copies/mL viral RNA, the detection rate of the Ustar assay was higher than that of either the Da An or Coyote assays. However, the three assays did not produce statistically significant results with the three different concentrations of viral RNA (P=0.46, 0.46 and 0.46). Using a 7500 Real-Time instrument, Da An and Coyote assays did not produce statistically significant results with the 1150, 525 and 287.5 copies/mL viral RNA (P>0.99, >0.99 and >0.99). The positive and negative detection rates of the three assays in the intra- and inter-assay stages were 100% on both their own instruments and the 7500 real-time PCR instrument.ConclusionPositive or strongly positive samples can be detected by the rapid nucleic acid assay, but the analytical performance should be optimized, and comprehensive evaluations are also required.
| S-EPMC8374845 | 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:BackgroundCurrently, SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection using real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) is the standard diagnostic test for COVID-19 infection. Various rRT-PCR assays are currently used worldwide, targeting different genes of the SARS-CoV-2. Here, we compared the analytical sensitivity and clinical performance (sensitivity and specificity) of Allplex SARS-CoV-2/FluA/FluB/RSV assay (Seegene), Standard M nCoV real-time detection kit (SD Biosensor), and U-TOP COVID-19 detection kit (Seasun Biomaterials) for SARS-CoV-2 detection.MethodsTwo hundred and forty-nine nasopharyngeal swab samples were evaluated to compare the clinical performance of the rRT-PCR assays. For the analytical performance evaluation, two RNA controls with known viral loads-SARS-CoV-2 RNA control and SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control-were used to investigate the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly the B.1.351 lineage.ResultsLimits of detection ranged from 650 to 1300 copies/ml for rRT-PCR assays, and the mean differences in cycle threshold (Ct ) values of the two RNA controls were within 1.0 for each target in the rRT-PCR assays (0.05-0.73), without any prominent Ct value shift or dropouts in the SARS-COV-2 B.1.351 RNA control. Using the consensus criterion as the reference standard, 89 samples were positive, whereas 160 were negative. The overall clinical performance of rRT-PCR assays was comparable (sensitivity 98.88%-100%; specificity 99.38%-100%), whereas the sensitivities of each target gene were more variable.ConclusionsThe three rRT-PCR assays showed comparable analytical sensitivity and clinical performance. The analytical and clinical sensitivities of each target gene were influenced more by the primer and probe design than the target gene itself.
| S-EPMC8842162 | 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:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has caused a global pandemic beginning in 2020, can be detected by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, owing to the urgent need for a large number of detection kits, the time spent researching and developing these kits has been shortened during the pandemic, and the kits that are being used commercially have not undergone full and independent evaluation. To ensure the accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 test results, performance verification of commercial Real-Time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) kits is required.MethodsThe performance of five commercial RT-qPCR diagnostic kits for SARS-CoV-2 used in China was evaluated using a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) RNA liquid performance verification reference product-manufactured by Guangzhou Bondson (BDS) Biotechnology Co., Ltd.,Guangzhou, China-that uses droplet digital RT-PCR technology combined with fluorescence quantitative PCR. The five kits of Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCoV nucleic acid detection kit (RT-qPCR method) evaluated were Da An (Da An Gene Co., Ltd. of Sun Yat-sen University), Liferiver (Shanghai ZJ Bio-Tech Co., Ltd.), Kinghawk (Beijing Kinghawk Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.), eDiagnosis (Wuhan Easy Diagnosis Biomedicine Co., Ltd.), and Maccura (Maccura Biotechnology Co., Ltd.). Performance verification criteria included the coincidence rate, limit of detection (LoD), cross-reactivity, precision, and anti-interference. Finally, through the BDS performance verification reference product kit, clinical samples are used to verify its clinical diagnostic efficacy.ResultsThe coincidence rate was 100% for all kits except for Kinghawk, which was 95%. The LoD for Da An, eDiagnosis and Maccura was 250copies/mL, and it was 1000 copies/ml for Liferiver. Kinghawk was not able to detect its advertised LoD of 500 copies/ml. The cross-reactivity test results were all negative. Moreover, all kits had a coefficient of variation less than 5%; however, Liferiver showed the best precision. Da An, Liferiver, and eDiagnosis showed higher sensitivity to the nucleocapsid (N) gene than they did to the open reading frame (ORF) 1ab genes. Anti-interference results for all five kits were positive. The results of clinical diagnostic efficacy were that the specificity of the four kits was 1.000 (0.877-1.000), the sensitivity of Da An was 1.000 (0.850-1.000), Liferiver was 0.964 (0.798-0.998), Maccura was 0.893 (0.706-0.972), and eDiagnosis was 0.857 (0.664-0.953).ConclusionsAll commercial RT-qPCR diagnostic kits for SARS-CoV-2 passed the BDS performance verification, except for Kinghawk (batch No:20200608113) which failed to detect the LoD of 500 copies/mL. Da An and Liferiver have excellent clinical diagnostic specificity and sensitivity. This study can provide guidance for the selection or optimization of RT-qPCR diagnostic test kits for SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC8662914 | 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:Hundreds of RT-qPCR kits are available in the market for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, some of them with emergency use authorization (EUA) by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) or their country of origin agency, but also many of them without any independent clinical performance evaluation. We performed a clinical evaluation for two Chinese SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kits available in South America, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis Biomedicine, Wuhan, China) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech, Changsha, China), for RT-qPCR SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis using the FDA EUA 2019-nCoV CDC kit (IDT, Coralville, IA) as gold standard. We found an excellent clinical performance and analytical sensitivity for both kits with sensitivity values of 100% and 95.3% and estimated limit of detection of 500 copies/mL and 1,000 copies/mL, for eDiagnosis and Sansure Biotech kits, respectively. COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Test Kit (eDiagnosis) and 2019-nCoV Nucleic Acid Diagnostic Kit (Sansure Biotech) are both made in China and hold EUA by the Chinese CDC. Also, Sansure Biotech kit has EUA by the FDA. In conclusion, our results endorse the use of these two commercially available kits imported to Ecuador for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, as they had the similar clinical performance as the gold standard from the CDC.
| S-EPMC8045661 | 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
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