Diagnostic performance of two serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies: surveillance after vaccination.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fresco-Taboada A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8789399 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread globally. Although several rapid commercial serological assays have been developed, little is known about their performance and accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in COVID-19 patient samples. Here, we have evaluated the performance of seven commercially available rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) obtained from different manufacturers, and compared them to in-house developed and validated ELISA assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies in RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all evaluated LFIA assays showed high specificity, our data showed a significant variation in sensitivity of these assays, which ranged from 0% to 54% for samples collected early during infection (3-7 days post symptoms onset) and from 54% to 88% for samples collected at later time points during infection (8-27 days post symptoms onset). Therefore, we recommend prior evaluation and validation of these assays before being routinely used to detect IgM and IgG in COVID-19 patients. Moreover, our findings suggest the use of LFIA assays in combination with other standard methods, and not as an alternative.
| S-EPMC7767212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS-CoV-2 virus was first detected in late 2019 and circulated globally, causing COVID-19, which is characterised by sub-clinical to severe disease in humans. Here, we investigate the serological antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection during acute and convalescent infection using a cohort of (i) COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital, (ii) healthy individuals who had experienced 'COVID-19 like-illness', and (iii) a cohort of healthy individuals prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. We compare SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody detection rates from four different serological methods, virus neutralisation test (VNT), ID Screen® SARS-CoV-2-N IgG ELISA, Whole Antigen ELISA, and lentivirus-based SARS-CoV-2 pseudotype virus neutralisation tests (pVNT). All methods were able to detect prior infection with COVID-19, albeit with different relative sensitivities. The VNT and SARS-CoV-2-N ELISA methods showed a strong correlation yet provided increased detection rates when used in combination. A pVNT correlated strongly with SARS-CoV-2 VNT and was able to effectively discriminate SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive and negative serum with the same efficiency as the VNT. Moreover, the pVNT was performed with the same level of discrimination across multiple separate institutions. Therefore, the pVNT is a sensitive, specific, and reproducible lower biosafety level alternative to VNT for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for diagnostic and research applications. Our data illustrate the potential utility of applying VNT or pVNT and ELISA antibody tests in parallel to enhance the sensitivity of exposure to infection.
| S-EPMC8074400 | 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: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:Current serological tests cannot differentiate between total immunoglobulin A (IgA) and dimeric IgA (dIgA) associated with mucosal immunity. Here, we describe two new assays, dIgA-ELISA and dIgA-multiplex bead assay (MBA), that utilize the preferential binding of dIgA to a chimeric form of secretory component, allowing the differentiation between dIgA and monomeric IgA. dIgA responses elicited through severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were measured in (i) a longitudinal panel, consisting of 74 samples (n = 20 individuals) from hospitalized cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); (ii) a longitudinal panel, consisting of 96 samples (n = 10 individuals) from individuals with mild COVID-19; (iii) a cross-sectional panel with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with mild COVID-19 (n = 199) and (iv) pre-COVID-19 samples (n = 200). The dIgA-ELISA and dIgA-MBA demonstrated a specificity for dIgA of 99% and 98.5%, respectively. Analysis of dIgA responses in the longitudinal panels revealed that 70% (ELISA) and 50% (MBA) of patients elicited a dIgA response by day 20 after PCR diagnosis with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Individuals with mild COVID-19 displayed increased levels of dIgA within the first 3 weeks after diagnosis but responses appeared to be short lived, compared with sustained IgA levels. However, in samples from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 we observed high and sustained levels of dIgA, up to 245 days after PCR diagnosis. Our results suggest that severe COVID-19 infections are associated with sustained levels of plasma dIgA compared with mild cases.
| S-EPMC10952984 | 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:Assessment of the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections is critical for monitoring the course and extent of the COVID-19 epidemic. Here, we report estimated seroprevalence in the French population and the proportion of infected individuals who developed neutralising antibodies at three points throughout the first epidemic wave. Testing 11,000 residual specimens for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and neutralising antibodies, we find nationwide seroprevalence of 0.41% (95% CI: 0.05-0.88) mid-March, 4.14% (95% CI: 3.31-4.99) mid-April and 4.93% (95% CI: 4.02-5.89) mid-May 2020. Approximately 70% of seropositive individuals have detectable neutralising antibodies. Infection fatality rate is 0.84% (95% CI: 0.70-1.03) and increases exponentially with age. These results confirm that the nationwide lockdown substantially curbed transmission and that the vast majority of the French population remained susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 in May 2020. Our study shows the progression of the first epidemic wave and provides a framework to inform the ongoing public health response as viral transmission continues globally.
| S-EPMC8140151 | 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
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: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