Performance of 30 commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in testing symptomatic COVID-19 patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vauloup-Fellous C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8007057 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Performance of 30 commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in testing symptomatic COVID-19 patients.
Vauloup-Fellous Christelle C Maylin Sarah S Périllaud-Dubois Claire C Brichler Ségolène S Alloui Chakib C Gordien Emmanuel E Rameix-Welti Marie-Anne MA Gault Elyanne E Moreau Frédérique F Fourati Slim S Challine Dominique D Pawlotsky Jean-Michel JM Houhou-Fidouh Nadhira N Damond Florence F Mackiewicz Vincent V Charpentier Charlotte C Méritet Jean-François JF Rozenberg Flore F Podglajen Isabelle I Marot Stéphane S Petit Heloïse H Burrel Sonia S Akhavan Sepideh S Leruez-Ville Marianne M Avettand-Fenoel Véronique V Fourgeaud Jacques J Guilleminot Tiffany T Gardiennet Elise E Bonacorsi Stéphane S Carol Agnès A Carcelain Guislaine G Villemonteix Juliette J Boukli Narjis N Gozlan Joël J Morand-Joubert Laurence L Legoff Jérome J Delaugerre Constance C Chaix Marie-Laure ML Roque-Afonso Ana-Maria AM Dortet Laurent L Naas Thierry T Ronat Jean-Baptiste JB Lepape Samuel S Marcelin Anne-Geneviève AG Descamps Diane D
European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology 20210329 10
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 inconsist ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether a positive serology result correlates with protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. There are also concerns regarding the low positive predictive value of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, especially when testing populations with low disease prevalence.MethodsA neutralization assay was validated in a set of PCR-confirmed positive specimens and in a negative cohort. In addition, 9530 specimens were screened using the Diazyme SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology assay and all positive results (N = 164 individuals) were reanalyzed using the neutralization assay, the Roche total immunoglobin assay, and the Abbott IgG assay. The relationship between the magnitude of a positive SARS-CoV-2 serology result and neutralizing activity was determined. Neutralizing antibody titers (50% inhibitory dilution, ID50) were also longitudinally monitored in patients confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.ResultsThe SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assay had a positive percentage agreement (PPA) of 96.6% with a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test and a negative percentage agreement (NPA) of 98.0% across 100 negative control individuals. ID50 neutralization titers positively correlated with all 3 clinical serology platforms. Longitudinal monitoring of hospitalized PCR-confirmed patients with COVID-19 demonstrated they made high neutralization titers against SARS-CoV-2. PPA between the Diazyme IgG assay alone and the neutralization assay was 50.6%, while combining the Diazyme IgG assay with either the Roche or Abbott platforms increased the PPA to 79.2 and 78.4%, respectively.ConclusionsThese 3 clinical serology assays positively correlate with SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity observed in patients with COVID-19. All patients confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive by PCR develop neutralizing antibodies.
| S-EPMC7665417 | 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:Appropriate use and interpretation of serological tests for assessments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure, infection and potential immunity require accurate data on assay performance. We conducted a head-to-head evaluation of ten point-of-care-style lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two laboratory-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in 5-d time intervals from symptom onset and studied the specificity of each assay in pre-coronavirus disease 2019 specimens. The percent of seropositive individuals increased with time, peaking in the latest time interval tested (>20 d after symptom onset). Test specificity ranged from 84.3% to 100.0% and was predominantly affected by variability in IgM results. LFA specificity could be increased by considering weak bands as negative, but this decreased detection of antibodies (sensitivity) in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR-positive cases. Our results underline the importance of seropositivity threshold determination and reader training for reliable LFA deployment. Although there was no standout serological assay, four tests achieved more than 80% positivity at later time points tested and more than 95% specificity.
| S-EPMC7740072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dried blood spots (DBS) are commonly used for serologic testing for viruses and provide an alternative collection method when phlebotomy and/or conventional laboratory testing are not readily available. DBS collection could be used to facilitate widespread testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to document past infection, vaccination, and potentially immunity. We investigated the characteristics of Roche's Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (S) assay, a quantitative commercial assay for antibodies against the spike glycoprotein. Antibody levels were reduced relative to plasma following elution from DBS. Quantitative results from DBS samples were highly correlated with values from plasma (r2 = 0.98), allowing for extrapolation using DBS results to accurately estimate plasma antibody levels. High concordance between plasma and fingerpick DBS was observed in PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients tested 90 days or more after the diagnosis (45/46 matched; 1/46 mismatched plasma vs. DBS). The assessment of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 using DBS may be feasible using a quantitative anti-S assay, although false negatives may rarely occur in those with very low antibody levels.
| S-EPMC8224688 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7589479 | 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:BackgroundMany serological assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences in the detection mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays limited the comparability of seroprevalence estimates for populations being tested.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of serological assays used in SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence surveys, searching for published articles, preprints, institutional sources, and grey literature between 1 January 2020, and 19 November 2021. We described features of all identified assays and mapped performance metrics by the manufacturers, third-party head-to-head, and independent group evaluations. We compared the reported assay performance by evaluation source with a mixed-effect beta regression model. A simulation was run to quantify how biased assay performance affects population seroprevalence estimates with test adjustment.ResultsAmong 1807 included serosurveys, 192 distinctive commercial assays and 380 self-developed assays were identified. According to manufacturers, 28.6% of all commercial assays met WHO criteria for emergency use (sensitivity [Sn.] >= 90.0%, specificity [Sp.] >= 97.0%). However, manufacturers overstated the absolute values of Sn. of commercial assays by 1.0% [0.1, 1.4%] and 3.3% [2.7, 3.4%], and Sp. by 0.9% [0.9, 0.9%] and 0.2% [-0.1, 0.4%] compared to third-party and independent evaluations, respectively. Reported performance data was not sufficient to support a similar analysis for self-developed assays. Simulations indicate that inaccurate Sn. and Sp. can bias seroprevalence estimates adjusted for assay performance; the error level changes with the background seroprevalence.ConclusionsThe Sn. and Sp. of the serological assay are not fixed properties, but varying features depending on the testing population. To achieve precise population estimates and to ensure the comparability of seroprevalence, serosurveys should select assays with high performance validated not only by their manufacturers and adjust seroprevalence estimates based on assured performance data. More investigation should be directed to consolidating the performance of self-developed assays.
| S-EPMC9783516 | 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:ImportanceWe have previously highlighted the fact that hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests were released months after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the hundreds of studies investigating the test kits' performance, few were comparative reports, using the same comprehensive sample set across multiple tests. Recently, we reported a comparative assessment of 35 rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIA) for use in low- and middle-income countries, using a large sample set from individuals with a history of COVID-19. Only a few tests meet WHO Target Product Profile performance requirements. This study reports on the performance of a further 25 automated SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays using the same panel of samples. The results highlight the better analytical and clinical performance of automated serology test kits compared with RDTs, and the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostic and epidemiological investigations.
| S-EPMC10783060 | 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