Evaluation of commercial SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in Canadian public health laboratories.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stein DR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8377389 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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:A variety of serological tests have been developed to detect the presence of antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated the performance of 18 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Early (6-8 days after the start of symptoms) and late sera (>14 days) from ICU patients (n=10 and n=16, respectively) and healthcare workers (n=5 and n=9, respectively) were included. Additionally, 22 sera were included to detect potential cross-reactivity. Test characteristics were determined for the 18 assays. In >14 days samples, the Vircell IgG and Wantai Ig ELISAs had superior sensitivity compared to the other ELISAs (96%). Furthermore, the Roche Ig, the Epitope Diagnostics IgM, Wantai IgM, Euroimmun IgG, and IgA all showed a specificity of 100%. The POCTs of Boson Biotech and ACRO Biotech showed the highest sensitivities: 100% and 96% (83.5-99.8), respectively. The POCT of Orient Gene Biotech, VOMED Diagnostics, and Coris-Bioconcept showed highest specificities (100%). For the IgM and IgA assays, the Euroimmun IgA test showed the highest sensitivity in early samples: 46.7% (23.5-70.9) to 53.3% (29.1-76.5). In general, all tests performed better in patients with severe symptoms (ICU patients). We conclude that the Wantai Ig and Vircell IgG ELISAs may be suitable for diagnostic purposes. The IgM/IgA tests performed poorer than their IgG/Ig counterparts but may have a role in diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 in a population in which the background seroprevalence of IgG high, and IgM and/or IgA may distinguish between acute or past infection.
| S-EPMC7968571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 infection are now widely available for use in diagnostic laboratories. Limited data are available on the performance characteristics in different settings, and at time periods remote from the initial infection. Validation of the Abbott (Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG), DiaSorin (Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG) and Roche (Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2) assays was undertaken utilising 217 serum samples from 131 participants up to 7 months following COVID-19 infection. The Abbott and DiaSorin assays were implemented into routine laboratory workflow, with outcomes reported for 2764 clinical specimens. Sensitivity and specificity were concordant with the range reported by the manufacturers for all assays. Sensitivity across the convalescent period was highest for the Roche at 95.2-100% (95% CI 81.0-100%), then the DiaSorin at 88.1-100% (95% CI 76.0-100%), followed by the Abbott 68.2-100% (95% CI 53.4-100%). Sensitivity of the Abbott assay fell from approximately 5 months; on this assay paired serum samples for 45 participants showed a significant drop in the signal-to-cut-off ratio and 10 sero-reversion events. When used in clinical practice, all samples testing positive by both DiaSorin and Abbott assays were confirmed as true positive results. In this low prevalence setting, despite high laboratory specificity, the positive predictive value of a single positive assay was low. Comprehensive validation of serological assays is necessary to determine the optimal assay for each diagnostic setting. In this low prevalence setting we found implementation of two assays with different antibody targets maximised sensitivity and specificity, with confirmatory testing necessary for any sample which was positive in only one assay.
| S-EPMC8289701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With emergence of pandemic COVID-19, rapid and accurate diagnostic testing is essential. This study compared laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) used for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Canadian hospital and public health laboratories, and some commercially available real-time RT-PCR assays. Overall, analytical sensitivities were equivalent between LDTs and most commercially available methods.
| S-EPMC7219382 | 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: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:Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies vary in performance. A critical need exists to perform head-to-head comparisons of these assays. The performances of 15 different lateral flow POCTs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were compared on a well-characterized set of 100 samples. Of these, 40 samples from known SARS-CoV-2-infected, convalescent individuals (collected an average of 45 days after symptom onset) were used to assess sensitivity. Sixty samples from the prepandemic era (negative control) that were known to represent infections with other respiratory viruses (rhinoviruses A, B, and C and/or coronavirus 229E, HKU1, and NL63 OC43) were used to assess specificity. The timing of seroconversion was assessed using five lateral flow assays (LFAs) and a panel of 272 longitudinal samples from 47 patients for whom the time since symptom onset was known. Among the assays that were evaluated, the sensitivity and specificity for any reactive band ranged from 55% to 97% and from 78% to 100%, respectively. Assessing the performance of the IgM and the IgG bands alone, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 88% and 80% to 100% for IgM and from 25% to 95% and 90% to 100% for IgG, respectively. Longitudinal testing revealed that the median times after symptom onset to a positive result were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4 to 9.8) for IgM and 8.2 days (IQR, 6.3 to 11.3) for IgG. The testing performances differed widely among LFAs, with greatest amount of variation related to the sensitivity of the assays. The IgM band was the band most likely to misclassify prepandemic samples. The appearances of IgM and IgG bands occurred almost simultaneously.
| S-EPMC8111122 | 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:BACKGROUND:Serological assays for the determination of the immune status of patients that have tested positive for infection with SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR are required for, e.g., contact tracing and epidemiological studies. However, data concerning the performance parameters of commercially available high-throughput ELISA tests are still not available on a large scale. STUDY DESIGN:In our study, we have evaluated an in-house developed ELISA for the detection of the immunoglobulin classes A, G and M directed against the full-length spike glycoprotein from SARS-CoV-2. For this analysis, we have included 110 sera from patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms or blood donors without symptoms collected at the Austrian Red Cross, Blood Transfusion Service for Upper Austria, Linz. In addition, we have selected four commercially available IgG-based ELISAs as well as one IgA/IgG-based ELISA for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens as well as a multiplexed IgG-based micro-ELISA assay developed for rapid Point of Care testing applications. CONCLUSIONS:All assays evaluated in the course of this study demonstrated suitable sensitivity and specificity values for the identification of patients that have experienced a past infection with SARS-CoV-2. However, testing for the presence of additional immunoglobulins (IgA and IgM) as well as using combinations of different viral antigens is highly advised to improve the predictive values of serological assays.
| S-EPMC7417972 | biostudies-literature