Dataset Information

Diagnostic performance of COVID-19 serological assays during early infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 516 samples.

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.