Evaluation of sixteen ELISA SARS-CoV-2 serological tests.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple companies marketed serological tests. Rigorous, independent and comparative performances of these assays on defined clinical specimens are needed.Methods
In a first preliminary phase, we investigated 16 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological ELISA using a panel of 180 sera, comprising 97 sera from patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 83 negative sera sampled before November 1, 2019. In a second phase and to complete the evaluation on the full panel (100 positive and 300 negative), tests that passed pre-defined exclusion criteria of 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity were further evaluated on 220 additional sera chosen to assess possible cross-reactivity with other human viral infections.Results
Among the 16 tests evaluated in the preliminary phase, two were excluded due to insufficient sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and one was excluded due to poor specificity. Of the 13 tests evaluated using the full panel comprised of a diverse pool of sera including those reactive against known respiratory viruses, no systematic cross-reactivity was observed. However, heterogeneities across tests were found. Consistent with kinetics of antibody expression, maximal sensitivity was found two weeks post-symptom onset.Conclusion
In this independent evaluation, we compared the performance of 16 SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using well-characterized sera and found 13 tests with more than 90% sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and 97% specificity across a diverse range of negative samples.
SUBMITTER: Jacot D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295192 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Public health emergency of SARS-CoV-2 has facilitated diagnostic testing as a related medical countermeasure against COVID-19 outbreak. Numerous serologic antibody tests have become available through an expedited federal emergency use only process. This paper highlights the analytical characteristic of an ELISA based assay by AnshLabs and three random access immunoassay (RAIA) by DiaSorin, Roche, and Abbott that have been approved for emergency use authorization (EUA), at a tertiary academic center in a low disease-prevalence area. The AnshLabs gave higher estimates of sero-prevalence, over the three RAIA methods. For positive results, AnshLabs had 93.3% and 100% agreement with DiaSorin or Abbott and Roche respectively. For negative results, AnshLabs had 74.3% and 78.3% agreement with DiaSorin and Roche or Abbott respectively. All discrepant samples that were positive by AnshLabs and negative by RAIA tested positive by all-in-one step SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) assay performed on the automated Siemens Advia Centaur XPT analyzer. None of these methods, however, are useful in early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.
| S-EPMC7537879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antibody testing for determining the SARS-CoV-2 serostatus was rapidly introduced in early 2020 and since then has been gaining special emphasis regarding correlates of protection. With limited access to representative samples with known SARS-CoV-2 infection status during the initial period of test development and validation, spectrum bias has to be considered when moving from a "test establishment setting" to population-based settings, in which antibody testing is currently implemented. To provide insights into the presence and magnitude of spectrum bias and to estimate performance measures of antibody testing in a population-based environment, we compared SARS-CoV-2 neutralization to a battery of serological tests and latent class analyses (LCA) in a subgroup (n = 856) of the larger population based TiKoCo-19 cohort (n = 4185). Regarding spectrum bias, we could proof notable differences in test sensitivities and specificities when moving to a population-based setting, with larger effects visible in earlier registered tests. While in the population-based setting the two Roche ELECSYS anti-SARS-CoV-2 tests outperformed every other test and even LCA regarding sensitivity and specificity in dichotomous testing, they didn't provide satisfying quantitative correlation with neutralization capacity. In contrast, our in-house anti SARS-CoV-2-Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG-ELISA (enzyme-linked-immunosorbant assay) though inferior in dichotomous testing, provided satisfactory quantitative correlation and may thus represent a better correlate of protection. In summary, all tests, led by the two Roche tests, provided sufficient accuracy for dichotomous identification of neutralizing sera, with increasing spectrum bias visible in earlier registered tests, while the majority of tests, except the RBD-ELISA, didn't provide satisfactory quantitative correlations.
| S-EPMC8534748 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRobust serological assays are essential for long-term control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many recently released point-of-care (PoCT) serological assays have been distributed with little premarket validation.MethodsPerformance characteristics for 5 PoCT lateral flow devices approved for use in Australia were compared to a commercial enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) and a recently described novel surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT).ResultsSensitivities for PoCT ranged from 51.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.1%-60.4%) to 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), and specificities from 95.6% (95% CI, 89.2%-98.8%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 96.1%-100.0%). ELISA sensitivity for IgA or IgG detection was 67.9% (95% CI, 59.4%-75.6%), increasing to 93.8% (95% CI, 85.0%-98.3%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset. sVNT sensitivity was 60.9% (95% CI, 53.2%-68.4%), rising to 91.2% (95% CI, 81.8%-96.7%) for samples >14 days post symptom onset, with specificity 94.4% (95% CI, 89.2%-97.5%).ConclusionsPerformance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays were generally lower than those reported by manufacturers. Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infection is crucial in reporting of performance characteristics for COVID-19 serological assays. The optimal algorithm for implementing serological testing for COVID-19 remains to be determined, particularly in low-prevalence settings.
| S-EPMC7454699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has triggered the worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections are important to understand the immune response in patients and to obtain epidemiological data about the number of infected people, especially to identify asymptomatic persons not aware of a past infection.MethodsWe recombinantly produced SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-protein in Escherichia coli. We used the purified protein to develop an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. This ELISA method was optimized and validated with serum samples collected from 113 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections including hospitalized COVID-19 patients and 1500 control sera mostly collected before 2015 with different clinical background.ResultsThe optimized N-protein-ELISA provided a sensitivity of 89.7% (n = 68) for samples collected from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and mild to severe symptoms more than 14 days after symptom onset or a positive PCR test. The antibody levels remained low for serum samples collected in the first six days (n = 23) and increased in the second week (n = 22) post symptom onset or PCR confirmation. At this early phase, the ELISA provided a sensitivity of 39.1% and 86.4%, respectively, reflecting the time of an IgG immune response against pathogens. The assay specificity was 99.3% (n = 1500; 95% CI 0.995-0.999). Serum samples from persons with confirmed antibody titers against human immunodeficiency viruses 1/2, parvovirus B19, hepatitis A/B virus, cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr virus, and herpes simplex virus were tested negative.ConclusionsWe conclude that the N-protein-based ELISA developed here is well suited for the sensitive and specific serological detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies in human serum for symptomatic infections. It may also prove useful to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated people, as all currently approved vaccines rely on the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-) protein.
| S-EPMC8934124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThese last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests available in April 2020 in Switzerland.MethodsIn a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other viruses.ResultsIn the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, five had a sensitivity and specificity above 90 % and 98 % respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no test showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response.ConclusionsThe majority of the evaluated tests exhibited high performances of IgG/pan-Ig sensitivity and specificity to detect the serological response of moderately to critically ill hospitalized patients. The IgM and IgA tests showed mostly insufficient performances with no added value for the early diagnostic on the cohort tested in this study.
| S-EPMC7670982 | 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:Management of the COVID-19 pandemic relies on molecular diagnostic methods supported by serological tools. Herein, we developed S-RBD- and N- based ELISA assays useful for infection rate surveillance as well as the follow-up of acquired protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. ELISA assays were optimized using COVID-19 Tunisian patients' sera and prepandemic controls. Assays were further validated in 3 African countries with variable endemic settings. The receiver operating curve was used to evaluate the assay performances. The N- and S-RBD-based ELISA assays performances, in Tunisia, were very high (AUC: 0.966 and 0.98, respectively, p < 0.0001). Cross-validation analysis showed similar performances in different settings. Cross-reactivity, with malaria infection, against viral antigens, was noticed. In head-to-head comparisons with different commercial assays, the developed assays showed high agreement. This study demonstrates, the added value of the developed serological assays in low-income countries, particularly in ethnically diverse populations with variable exposure to local endemic infectious diseases.
| S-EPMC9867841 | 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:BackgroundViral diversity presents an ongoing challenge for diagnostic tests, which need to accurately detect all circulating variants. The Abbott Global Surveillance program monitors severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and their impact on diagnostic test performance.ObjectivesTo evaluate the capacity of Abbott molecular, antigen, and serologic assays to detect circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants, including all current variants of concern (VOC): B.1.1.7 (alpha), B.1.351 (beta), P.1 (gamma) and B.1.617.2 (delta).Study designDilutions of variant virus cultures (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.429, B.1.526.1, B.1.526.2, B.1.617.1, B.1.617.2, P.1, R.1 and control isolate WA1) and a panel of N = 248 clinical samples from patients with sequence confirmed variant infections (B.1.1.7, B.1.351, B.1.427, B.1.429, B.1.526, B.1.526.1, B.1.526.2, P.1, P.2, R.1) were evaluated on at least one assay: Abbott ID NOW COVID-19, m2000 RealTime SARS-CoV-2, Alinity m SARS-CoV-2, and Alinity m Resp-4-Plex molecular assays; the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device; and the ARCHITECT/Alinity i SARS-CoV-2 IgG and AdviseDx IgM assays, Panbio COVID-19 IgG assay, and ARCHITECT/Alinity i AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay.ResultsConsistent with in silico predictions, each molecular and antigen assay detected VOC virus cultures with equivalent sensitivity to the WA1 control strain. Notably, 100% of all tested variant patient specimens were detected by molecular assays (N = 197 m2000, N = 88 Alinity m, N = 99 ID NOW), and lateral flow assays had a sensitivity of >94% for specimens with genome equivalents (GE) per device above 4 log (85/88, Panbio; 54/57 Binax). Furthermore, Abbott antibody assays detected IgG and IgM in 94-100% of sera from immune competent B.1.1.7 patients 15-26 days after symptom onset.ConclusionsThese data confirm variant detection for 11 SARS-CoV-2 assays, which is consistent with each assay target region being highly conserved. Importantly, alpha, beta, gamma, and delta VOCs were detected by molecular and antigen assays, indicating that these tests may be suitable for widescale use where VOCs predominate.
| S-EPMC8770247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSerological testing is an important tool to assist with assessing the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infections, the causative agent of COVID-19. A quantitative assay was recently developed by Abbott Laboratories to measures antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the spike protein. In addition to assessing disease prevalence, this assay is useful towards determining the scale and duration of the humoral response to infection and vaccination. Here we evaluated the clinical and analytical performance of the quantitative Abbott AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay and characterized the longitudinal dynamics of the IgG response against SARS-CoV-2 in 402 infected individuals up to 322 days post-symptom onset.MethodsTo assess test sensitivity, 1257 serum specimens derived from 402 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR were analyzed on the Abbott Alinity platform. To evaluate test specificity, 394 specimens were tested from patients who were symptomatic but PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2, as well as 305 archived pre-pandemic samples. To further characterize test performance metrics, we evaluated assay precision and linearity.ResultsThe Abbott AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay exhibited diagnostic specificity of 99.02% using 305 pre - COVID-19 serum specimens and 98.73% using 394 PCR negative specimens. Using 1257 sequential serum samples collected from PCR-confirmed individuals, clinical test sensitivity of the assay was 39.7% at 3-7 days, 75.9% at 8-14 days, 95.6% at 15-21 days, and 98.7% at 4-5 weeks post-symptom onset. The assay is linear across the analytical measurement range claimed by the manufacturer (22-25,000 AU/mL) and exhibited good analytical precision. The median concentration of IgG increased steadily from <22 AU/mL at 3-7 days post-symptom onset, to a peak of 14,421 AU/mL at 6-7 weeks. Although antibody concentration started to decline at 8-9 weeks following symptom onset, all patients remained seropositive during the observation period. When the positivity rate of this assay was compared with the Abbott anti-NP IgG and EUROIMMUN anti-S1 IgG tests, clinical sensitivity of the Abbott AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay was the highest at all time points with the exception of 4-5 weeks after symptom onset.ConclusionThe Abbott AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay offers high test specificity and sensitivity across a broad reportable range. We anticipate this assay will be a useful towards quantitatively assessing the humoral immune response to COVID-19 infection and vaccination.
| S-EPMC8847080 | biostudies-literature