Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serological assays during early infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 516 samples.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serological testing to diagnose acute infection or determine population seroprevalence relies on understanding assay accuracy during early infection. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of serological testing in COVID-19 by providing summary sensitivity and specificity estimates with time from symptom onset.Methods
A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PubMed was performed up to May 13, 2020. All English language, original peer-reviewed publications reporting the diagnostic performance of serological testing vis-à-vis virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included.Results
Our search yielded 599 unique publications. A total of 39 publications reporting 11 516 samples from 8872 human participants met eligibility criteria for inclusion in our study. Pooled percentages of IgM and IgG seroconversion by Day 7, 14, 21, 28 and after Day 28 were 37.5%, 73.3%, 81.3%, 72.3% and 73.3%, and 35.4%, 80.6%, 93.3%, 84.4% and 98.9%, respectively. By Day 21, summary estimate of IgM sensitivity was 0.872 (95% CI: 0.784-0.928) and specificity 0.973 (95% CI: 0.938-0.988), while IgG sensitivity was 0.913 (95% CI: 0.823-0.959) and specificity 0.960 (95% CI: 0.919-0.980). On meta-regression, IgM and IgG test accuracy was significantly higher at Day 14 using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) compared to other methods.Conclusions
Serological assays offer imperfect sensitivity for the diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Estimates of population seroprevalence during or shortly after an outbreak will need to adjust for the delay between infection, symptom onset and seroconversion.
SUBMITTER: Zhang JJY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013346 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundTularemia is a rare zoonotic disease caused by the Gram-negative bacterium Francisella tularensis. Serology is frequently the preferred diagnostic approach, because the pathogen is highly infectious and difficult to cultivate. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tularemia specific tests.MethodsThe Serazym®Anti-Francisella tularensis ELISA, Serion ELISA classic Francisella tularensis IgG/IgM, an in-house ELISA, the VIRapid® Tularemia immunochromatographic test, an in-house antigen microarray, and a Western Blot (WB) assay were evaluated. The diagnosis tularemia was established using a standard micro-agglutination assay. In total, 135 sera from a series of 110 consecutive tularemia patients were tested.ResultsThe diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity of the tests were VIRapid (97.0% and 84.0%), Serion IgG (96.3% and 96.8%), Serion IgM (94.8% and 96.8%), Serazym (97.0% and 91.5%), in-house ELISA (95.6% and 76.6%), WB (93.3% and 83.0%), microarray (91.1% and 97.9%).ConclusionsThe diagnostic value of the commercial assays was proven, because the diagnostic accuracy was >90%. The diagnostic sensitivity of the in-house ELISA and the WB were acceptable, but the diagnostic accuracy was <90%. Interestingly, the antigen microarray test was very specific and had a very good positive predictive value.
| S-EPMC4021340 | 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:Massive vaccination programs are being carried out to limit the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that started in December 2019. Serological tests are of major importance as an indicator of circulation of the virus and to assess how vaccine-induced immunity progresses. An Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and a Lateral Flow Assay (LFA) have been developed based on the SARS-CoV-2 recombinant Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) and the combination of Spike and Nucleoprotein, respectively. The validation with 1272 serum samples by comparison with INgezim® COVID 19 DR showed good diagnostic performance (sensitivity: 93.2%-97.2%; specificity: 98.3%-99.3%) for detection of previous contact with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, according to our results, these assays can help in the serosurveillance during and after vaccination, by detecting the humoral immune response as soon as 15 days post-vaccination and identifying low-respondents. Hence, these tests could play a key role in the progression to a COVID-19 free world, helping to adjust future vaccination protocols.
| S-EPMC8789399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Zika virus (ZIKV) emerged and spread rapidly in South American countries during 2015. Efforts to diagnose ZIKV infection using serological tools were challenging in dengue-endemic areas because of antigenic similarities between both viruses. Here, we assessed the performance of an in-house developed IgM antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (MAC-ELISA) and the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to diagnose ZIKV infection. Acute and convalescent paired serum samples from 51 patients who presented with clinical symptoms suggestive of an arbovirus illness in dengue-endemic areas of Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia and Peru were used in the assessment. Samples were tested for ZIKV, dengue and chikungunya virus using a variety of laboratory techniques. The results for the ZIKV-RNA screening and seroconversion detected by the microneutralization test were used to construct a composite reference standard. The overall sensitivity and specificity for the MAC-ELISA were 93.5% and 100.0%, respectively. Contrastingly, the overall sensitivity and specificity for the PRNT were 96.8% and 95.0%, respectively. Restricting the analysis according to IgM or neutralizing antibodies against dengue, the performances of both serological assays were adequate. The findings of this study reveal that the MAC-ELISA and PRNT would provide initial reliable laboratory diagnostic assays for ZIKV infection in dengue-endemic areas.
| S-EPMC8469165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays (αSyn-SAAs) are promising diagnostic tools for Parkinson's disease (PD) and related synucleinopathies. They enable detection of seeding-competent alpha-synuclein aggregates in living patients and have shown high diagnostic accuracy in several PD and other synucleinopathy patient cohorts. However, there has been confusion about αSyn-SAAs for their methodology, nomenclature, and relative accuracies when performed by various laboratories. We compared αSyn-SAA results obtained from three independent laboratories to evaluate reproducibility across methodological variations. We utilized the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) cohort, with DATSCAN data available for comparison, since clinical diagnosis of early de novo PD is critical for neuroprotective trials, which often use dopamine transporter imaging to enrich their cohorts. Blinded cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples for a randomly selected subset of PPMI subjects (30 PD, 30 HC, and 20 SWEDD), from both baseline and year 3 collections for the PD and HC groups (140 total CSF samples) were analyzed in parallel by each lab according to their own established and optimized αSyn-SAA protocols. The αSyn-SAA results were remarkably similar across laboratories, displaying high diagnostic performance (sensitivity ranging from 86 to 96% and specificity from 93 to 100%). The assays were also concordant for samples with results that differed from clinical diagnosis, including 2 PD patients determined to be clinically inconsistent with PD at later time points. All three assays also detected 2 SWEDD subjects as αSyn-SAA positive who later developed PD with abnormal DAT-SPECT. These multi-laboratory results confirm the reproducibility and value of αSyn-SAA as diagnostic tools, illustrate reproducibility of the assay in expert hands, and suggest that αSyn-SAA has potential to provide earlier diagnosis with comparable or superior accuracy to existing methods.
| S-EPMC8572469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) induces an antibody response targeting multiple antigens that changes over time. This study aims to take advantage of this complexity to develop more accurate serological diagnostics.MethodsA multiplex serological assay was developed to measure IgG and IgM antibody responses to seven SARS-CoV-2 spike or nucleoprotein antigens, two antigens for the nucleoproteins of the 229E and NL63 seasonal coronaviruses, and three non-coronavirus antigens. Antibodies were measured in serum samples collected up to 39 days after symptom onset from 215 adults in four French hospitals (53 patients and 162 health-care workers) with quantitative RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and negative control serum samples collected from healthy adult blood donors before the start of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic (335 samples from France, Thailand, and Peru). Machine learning classifiers were trained with the multiplex data to classify individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, with the best classification performance displayed by a random forests algorithm. A Bayesian mathematical model of antibody kinetics informed by prior information from other coronaviruses was used to estimate time-varying antibody responses and assess the sensitivity and classification performance of serological diagnostics during the first year following symptom onset. A statistical estimator is presented that can provide estimates of seroprevalence in very low-transmission settings.FindingsIgG antibody responses to trimeric spike protein (Stri) identified individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection with 91·6% (95% CI 87·5-94·5) sensitivity and 99·1% (97·4-99·7) specificity. Using a serological signature of IgG and IgM to multiple antigens, it was possible to identify infected individuals with 98·8% (96·5-99·6) sensitivity and 99·3% (97·6-99·8) specificity. Informed by existing data from other coronaviruses, we estimate that 1 year after infection, a monoplex assay with optimal anti-Stri IgG cutoff has 88·7% (95% credible interval 63·4-97·4) sensitivity and that a four-antigen multiplex assay can increase sensitivity to 96·4% (80·9-100·0). When applied to population-level serological surveys, statistical analysis of multiplex data allows estimation of seroprevalence levels less than 2%, below the false-positivity rate of many other assays.InterpretationSerological signatures based on antibody responses to multiple antigens can provide accurate and robust serological classification of individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. This provides potential solutions to two pressing challenges for SARS-CoV-2 serological surveillance: classifying individuals who were infected more than 6 months ago and measuring seroprevalence in serological surveys in very low-transmission settings.FundingEuropean Research Council. Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale. Institut Pasteur Task Force COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7837364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection using magnifying endoscopy offers advantages over conventional invasive and noninvasive tests.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of magnifying endoscopy in the prediction of H. pylori infection.MethodsA literature search of the PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Direct and the Cochrane Library databases was performed. A random-effects model was used to calculate the diagnostic efficiency of magnifying endoscopy for H. pylori infection. A summary receiver operator characteristic curve was plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.ResultsA total of 18 studies involving 1897 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of magnifying endoscopy to predict H. pylori infection were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.91] and 0.82 (95%CI 0.79-0.85), respectively, with an AUC of 0.9461. When targeting the gastric antrum, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.86) and 0.72 (95%CI 0.66-0.78), respectively. When targeting the gastric corpus, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.92 (95%CI 0.90-0.94) and 0.86 (95%CI 0.82-0.88), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using magnifying white light endoscopy were 0.90 (95%CI 0.87-0.91) and 0.81 (95%CI 0.77-0.84), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using magnifying chromoendoscopy were 0.87 (95%CI 0.83-0.91) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.80-0.88), respectively. The "pit plus vascular pattern" classification in the gastric corpus observed by magnifying endoscopy was able to accurately predict the status of H. pylori infection, as indicated by a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.96 (95%CI 0.94-0.97) and 0.91 (95%CI 0.87-0.93), respectively, with an AUC of 0.9872.ConclusionsMagnifying endoscopy was able to accurately predict the status of H. pylori infection, either in magnifying white light endoscopy or magnifying chromoendoscopy mode. The "pit plus vascular pattern" classification in the gastric corpus is an optimum diagnostic criterion.
| S-EPMC5167261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we evaluated and compared six SARS-CoV-2 serology kits including the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, OCD Vitros OCD Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total antibody assay, Roche Elecsys Anti SARS-CoV-2 assay, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total assay, and cPass surrogate viral neutralising antibody assay. A total of 336 non-duplicated residual serum samples that were obtained from COVID-19 confirmed patients (n=173) on PCR and negative controls (n=163) obtained pre-December 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic were used for the study. These were concurrently analysed on the different immunoassay platforms and correlated with clinical characteristics. Our results showed all assays had specificity ranging from 99.3% to 100.0%. Overall sensitivity across all days of symptoms, in descending order were OCD (49.1%, 95% CI 41.8-56.5%), cPass (44.8%, 95% CI 37.5-52.3%), Roche (41.6%, 95% CI 34.5-49.0%), Siemens (39.9%, 95% CI 32.9-47.3%), Abbott (39.8%, 95% CI 32.9-47.3%) and Beckman (39.6%, 95% CI 32.5-47.3%). Testing after at least 14 days from symptom onset is required to achieve AUCs greater than 0.80. OCD and cPass performed the best in terms of sensitivity for >21 days symptoms with 93.3% (95% CI, 73.5-99.2%) and 96.7% (95% CI, 82.8-99.9%), respectively. Both also shared the greatest concordance, kappa 0.963 (95% CI 0.885-1.0), p<0.001, and had the lowest false negative rates. Serology results should be interpreted with caution in certain cases. False negatives were observed in a small number of individuals with COVID-19 on immunosuppressive therapy, pauci-symptomatic or who received antiretroviral therapy. In conclusion, all assays exhibited excellent specificity and total antibody assays with spike protein configurations generally outperformed nucleocapsid configurations and IgG assays in terms of diagnostic sensitivity.
| S-EPMC7524664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread worldwide. Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies plays an important role in understanding and controlling the pandemic, notably through epidemiological surveillance. Well-validated and highly specific SARS-CoV-2 serological assays are urgently needed. We describe here the analytical and clinical performance of Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM and Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgG, two CE-marked, emergency use authorization (EUA)-authorized, automated, qualitative assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG, respectively. Both assays showed high within-run and within-laboratory precision (coefficients of variation < 11.0%) and very low cross-reactivity toward sera of patients with a past common coronavirus or respiratory virus infection. Clinical specificity determined on up to 989 prepandemic healthy donors was ≥99% with a narrow 95% confidence interval for both IgM and IgG assays. Clinical sensitivity was determined on up to 232 samples from 130 reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients. The positive percent agreement (PPA) with SARS-CoV-2 PCR reached 100% at ≥16 days (Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM) and ≥32 days (Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgG) of symptom onset. Combined IgM/IgG test results improved the PPA compared to each test alone. SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroconversion followed closely that of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and remained stable over time, while SARS-CoV-2 IgM levels rapidly declined. Interestingly, SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG responses were significantly higher in COVID-19 hospitalized versus nonhospitalized patients. Altogether, the Vidas SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG assays are highly specific and sensitive serological tests suitable for the reliable detection of past acute SARS-CoV-2 infections.
| S-EPMC8092742 | biostudies-literature