Evaluation of three commercial and two non-commercial immunoassays for the detection of prior infection to SARS-CoV-2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Serological testing provides a record of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, but assay performance requires independent assessment.Methods
We evaluated three commercial (Roche Diagnostics pan-IG, Epitope Diagnostics IgM and IgG) and two non-commercial (Simoa, Ragon/MGH IgG) immunoassays against 1083 unique samples that included 251 PCR positive and 832 pre-pandemic samples.Results
The Roche assay registered the highest specificity 99.6% (3/832 false positives), the Ragon/MGH assay 99.5% (4/832), the primary Simoa assay model 99.0% (8/832), and the Epitope IgG and IgM 99.0 (8/830) and 99.5% (4/830) respectively. Overall sensitivities for the Simoa, Roche pan-IG, Epitope IgG, Ragon/MGH IgG, and Epitope IgM were 92.0%, 82.9%, 82.5%, 64.5% and 47.0% respectively. The Simoa immunoassay demonstrated the highest sensitivity among samples stratified by days post symptom onset (PSO), < 8 days PSO (57.69%) 8-14 days PSO (93.51%), 15-21 days PSO (100%), and > 21 days PSO (95.18%).Conclusions
All assays demonstrated high to very high specificities while sensitivities were variable across assays.
SUBMITTER: Nilles EJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420636 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Seroepidemiology is an important tool to characterize the epidemiology and immunobiology of SARS-CoV-2 but many immunoassays have not been externally validated raising questions about reliability of study findings. To ensure meaningful data, particularly in a low seroprevalence population, assays need to be rigorously characterized with high specificity. Methods We evaluated two commercial (Roche Diagnostics and Epitope Diagnostics IgM/IgG) and two non-commercial (Simoa and Ragon/MGH IgG) immunoassays against 68 confirmed positive and 232 pre-pandemic negative controls. Sensitivity was stratified by time from symptom onset. The Simoa multiplex assay applied three pre-defined algorithm models to determine sample result. Results The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays each registered 1/232 false positive, the primary Simoa model registered 2/232 false positives, and the Epitope registered 2/230 and 3/230 false positives for the IgG and IgM assays respectively. Sensitivity >21 days post symptom-onset was 100% for all assays except Epitope IgM, but lower and/or with greater variability between assays for samples collected 9-14 days (67-100%) and 15-21 days (69-100%) post-symptom onset. The Simoa and Epitope IgG assays demonstrated excellent sensitivity earlier in the disease course. The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays were less sensitive during early disease, particularly among immunosuppressed individuals. Conclusions The Epitope IgG demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity. The Roche and Ragon/MGH IgG assays registered rare false positives with lower early sensitivity. The Simoa assay primary model had excellent sensitivity and few false positives.
| S-EPMC7325183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A comparison of the clinical performance of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was performed. Patient sera were collected at least 6 weeks following onset of COVID-19 infection symptoms. Negative control specimens were stored specimens from those without COVID-19, collected in April-May 2019. Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Linear regression was used to examine the relationship between the magnitude of serological response and clinical characteristics. There were 80 patients from whom 86 sera specimens were collected; six patients had duplicate specimens. There were 95 negative control specimens from 95 patients. The clinical sensitivity of the Elecsys assay was 98.84% (95% CI 93.69-99.97), specificity was 100% (95% CI 96.19-100.00); the Liaison assay clinical sensitivity was 96.51% (95% CI 90.14-99.27), specificity was 97.89% (95% CI 92.60-99.74); the Access assay clinical sensitivity was 84.88% (95% CI 75.54-91.70), specificity was 98.95% (95% CI 94.27-99.97); and the Vitros assay clinical sensitivity was 97.67% (95% CI 91.85-99.72), specificity was 100% (95% CI 96.15-100.00). A requirement for hospitalisation for COVID-19 infection was associated with a larger Vitros, Liaison and Access IgG response whilst fever was associated with a larger Elecsys response. All assays evaluated with the exception of the Access assay demonstrated similar performance. The Elecsys assay demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity.
| S-EPMC7505602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveNumerous immunoassays for detecting antibodies directed against SARS-CoV-2 have been rapidly developed and released. Validations of these have been performed with a limited number of samples. The lack of standardisation might lead to significantly different results. This study compared ten automated assays from six vendors in terms of sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility.MethodsThis study compared ten fully automated immunoassays from the following vendors: Diasorin, Epitope Diagnostics, Euroimmun, Roche, YHLO, and Snibe. The retrospective part of the study included patients with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection, and controls comprised patients with a suspected infection, in whom the disease was excluded. Furthermore, biobanked sera were taken as negative controls (n = 97). The retrospective part involved four groups: (1) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection (n = 183); (1B) suspected COVID-19 infection (n = 167) without a qRT-PCR result but positive serological results from at least two different assays, and suspected COVID-19 infection due to a positive serological result from the Roche assay (n = 295); (2) biobanked sera obtained from patients before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 97) as negative controls; and (2A) probably COVID-19-negative sera with negative serological results from at least two different assays (n = 152).ResultsOverall diagnostic sensitivities were: Euroimmun (IgA) 87%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgG) 83%; YHLO (IgG) 77%; Roche (IgM/IgG) 77%; Euroimmun (IgG) 75%; Diasorin (IgG) 53%; Epitope Diagnostics (IgM) 52%; Snibe (IgG) 47%; YHLO (IgM) 35%; and Snibe (IgM) 26%. Diagnostic specificities were: YHLO (IgG) 100%; Roche, 100%; Snibe (IgM/IgG) 100%; Diasorin (IgG) 97%; Euroimmun (IgG) 94%; YHLO (IgM) 94%; Euroimmun (IgA) 83%.ConclusionAssays from different vendors substantially varied in terms of their performance. These findings might facilitate selection of appropriate serological assays.
| S-EPMC7725057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three assays for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in nasopharyngeal swabs (Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag [LPG], STANDARDTM F COVID-19 Ag FIA [STF] and AFIAS COVID-19 Ag [AFC] were evaluated. Compared to RT-PCR, LPG, AFC and STF showed a variable sensitivity (87.9%, 37.5%, and 35.7%, respectively) and an overall high specificity (> 95%).
| S-EPMC8137375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 and caused a dramatic pandemic. Serological assays are used to check for immunization and assess herd immunity. We evaluated commercially available assays designed to quantify antibodies directed to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) antigen, either total (Wantaï SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA) or IgG (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant on Alinity, Abbott, and Liaison SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG, Diasorin). The specificities of the Wantaï, Alinity, and Liaison assays were evaluated using 100 prepandemic sera and were 98, 99, and 97%, respectively. The sensitivities of all three were around 100% when tested on 35 samples taken 15 to 35 days postinfection. They were less sensitive for 150 sera from late infections (>180 days). Using the first WHO international standard (NIBSC), we showed that the Wantai results were concordant with the NIBSC values, while Liaison and Alinity showed a proportional bias of 1.3 and 7, respectively. The results of the 3 immunoassays were significantly globally pairwise correlated and for late infection sera (P < 0.001). They were correlated for recent infection sera measured with Alinity and Liaison (P < 0.001). However, the Wantai results of recent infections were not correlated with those from Alinity or Liaison. All the immunoassay results were significantly correlated with the neutralizing antibody titers obtained using a live virus neutralization assay with the B1.160 SARS-CoV-2 strain. These assays will be useful once the protective anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titer has been determined. IMPORTANCE Standardization and correlation with virus neutralization assays are critical points to compare the performance of serological assays designed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in order to identify their optimal use. We have evaluated three serological immunoassays based on the virus spike antigen that detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a microplate assay and two chemiluminescent assays performed with Alinity (Abbott) and Liaison (Diasorin) analysers. We used an in-house live virus neutralization assay and the first WHO international standard to assess the comparison. This study could be useful to determine guidelines on the use of serological results to manage vaccination and treatment with convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibodies.
| S-EPMC8694121 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The number of serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 has skyrocketed in the past year. Concerns have been raised regarding their performance characteristics, depending on the disease severity and the time of the analysis post-symptom onset (PSO). Thus, independent validations using an unbiased sample selection are required for meaningful serology data interpretation. We aimed to assess the clinical performance of six commercially available assays, the seroconversion, and the dynamics of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study included 528 serum samples from 156 patients with follow-up visits up to six months PSO and 161 serum samples from healthy people. The IgG/total antibodies positive percentage increased and remained above 95% after six months when chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) IgG antiS1/S2 and electro-chemiluminescent assay (ECLIA) total antiNP were used. At early time points PSO, chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) IgM antiS achieved the best sensitivity. IgM and IgG appear simultaneously in most circumstances, and when performed in parallel the sensitivity increases. The severe and the moderate clinical forms were significantly associated with higher seropositivity percentage and antibody levels. High specificity was found in all evaluated assays, but the sensitivity was variable depending on the time PSO, severity of disease, detection method and targeted antigen.
| S-EPMC8310110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The estimation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies is possibly the best approach to accurately establish the number of infected individuals and the seroprevalence of COVID-19 within a population. Thus, several commercial immunoassays have recently been developed. The purpose of our study was to assess the performance of five commonly used immunoassays in Greece (3 ELISA, namely Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2, GA GENERIC SARS-CoV-2 and Vircell COVID-19; and 2 chemiluminescent, namely ABBOTT SARS-CoV-2 and ROCHE Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 test) for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Sera specimens derived from 168 individuals were utilized to assess the specificity and sensitivity score of each assay. Among them, we included 99 COVID-19 patients (29 asymptomatic, 36 with symptom onset 4 to 14 days before serum sampling, and 34 with symptom initiation ≥ 15 days ago), and 69 volunteers with sera specimens collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and maintained at -80°C. We demonstrated that chemiluminescent immunoassays exhibit a significantly higher specificity score but a lower sensitivity, compared to ELISA immunoassays. Moreover, immunoassays detecting IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 N protein instead of S protein alone are more reliable, considering both specificity and sensitivity scores. Interestingly, all asymptomatic patients displayed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, confirmed by at least two immunoassays. We suggest that chemiluminescent assays could be used as screening methods for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies to evaluate the possible prevalence of disease in the general population, while ELISA assays would be more reliable to evaluate, and follow-up confirmed COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7785794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The increasing COVID-19 widespread has created the necessity to assess the diagnostic accuracy of newly introduced (RT-PCR based) assays for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in respiratory tract samples. We compared the results of the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV assay with those of the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct assay and the Quanty COVID-19 assay, respectively, all performed on 125 nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples of patients with COVID-19 suspicion. Fifty-four samples were positive, and 71 were negative with the Allplex™ assay, whereas 47 of 54 samples were also positive with the Simplexa™ assay. The Quanty assay detected 55 positive samples, including the 54 positive samples with the Allplex™ assay and 1 sample that was Allplex™ negative but Simplexa™ positive. Using a consensus result criterion as the reference standard allowed to resolve the eight samples with discordant results (one Allplex™ negative and seven Simplexa™ negative) as truly false negative. Interestingly, a Spearman's negative association was found between the viral RNA loads quantified by the Quanty assay and the CT values of RT PCRs performed with either the Allplex™ assay or the Simplexa™ assay. However, the strength of this association was higher for the Allplex™ assay (N gene, ??=?-?0.92; RdRP gene, ??=?-?0.91) than for the Simplexa™ assay (ORF1ab gene, ??=?-?0.65; S gene, ??=?-?0.80). The Allplex™ 2019-nCoV, the Simplexa™ COVID-19 Direct, and the Quanty COVID-19 assays yielded comparable results. However, the role these assays might play in future clinical practice warrants larger comparison studies.
| S-EPMC7471581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn North America, both mRNA vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2, and Moderna mRNA-1273, each utilizing a two-dose regimen, have started to be administered to individuals.MethodsWe evaluated the quantitative serologic antibody response following administration of either a single dose or both doses of an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in a cohort of 98 participants (88 healthcare workers [HCW] and 10 solid organ transplant [SOT] recipients). Antibody levels were compared across three immunoassays: Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics), SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (DiaSorin), and SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott).ResultsAmong HCW, sensitivity ranged from 100% (Roche), 99% (Abbott) and 98% (DiaSorin). The SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant and SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assays showed good agreement with a Pearson correlation coefficient of R = 0.95. Pearson correlation coefficients of R = 0.82 and 0.83 were obtained for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S vs SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG followed by SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant vs Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S, respectively. Significant differences in antibody levels between HCW and SOT recipients were observed. A decrease in antibody levels from time of vaccine administration to blood draw was evident. Among those with a second dose, an increase in antibody levels with increased time between administration of the first and second dose was observed.ConclusionsThe absolute values generated from each of the assay platforms are not interchangeable. Antibody levels differed with increased time between vaccine administration and with increased time between administration of the first and second dose. Further, significant differences in antibody levels between HCW and SOT recipients were observed.
| S-EPMC8436397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sensitive and specific severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decision-making. We evaluated three commercial serologic assays as stand-alone tests and as components of two-test algorithms. Two nucleocapsid antibody tests (Abbott IgG and Roche total antibody) and one spike protein antibody test (DiaSorin IgG) were included. We assessed sensitivity using 128 serum samples from symptomatic PCR-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-infected patients and specificity using 1,204 samples submitted for routine serology prior to COVID-19's emergence, plus 64 pandemic-era samples from SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative patients with respiratory symptoms. Assays were evaluated as stand-alone tests and as components of a two-test algorithm in which positive results obtained using one assay were verified using a second assay. The two nucleocapsid antibody tests were more sensitive than the spike protein antibody test overall (70% and 70% versus 57%; P ≤ 0.003), with pronounced differences observed using samples collected 7 to 14 days after symptom onset. All three assays were comparably sensitive (≥89%; P ≥ 0.13) using samples collected >14 days after symptom onset. Specificity was higher using the nucleocapsid antibody tests (99.3% and 99.7%) than using the spike protein antibody test (97.8%; P ≤ 0.002). When any two assays were paired in a two-test algorithm, the specificity was 99.9% (P < 0.0001 to 0.25 compared with the individual assays), and the positive predictive value (PPV) improved substantially, with a minimal effect on the negative predictive value (NPV). In conclusion, two nucleocapsid antibody tests outperformed a spike protein antibody test. Pairing two different serologic tests in a two-test algorithm improves the PPV, compared with the individual assays alone, while maintaining the NPV.
| S-EPMC7771444 | biostudies-literature