Evaluation of Three Immunoassays for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Baccani I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137375 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluation of Three Immunoassays for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigens.
Baccani Ilaria I Morecchiato Fabio F Chilleri Chiara C Cervini Chiara C Gori Emanuele E Matarrese Daniela D Bassetti Andrea A Bonizzoli Manuela M Mencarini Jessica J Antonelli Alberto A Rossolini Gian Maria GM
Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 20210521 2
Three assays for SARS-CoV-2 antigen detection in nasopharyngeal swabs (Lumipulse® G SARS-CoV-2 Ag [LPG], STANDARD<sup>TM</sup> 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%). ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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:BackgroundIn North America, both messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2, and Moderna mRNA-1273, each utilizing a 2-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 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (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 3 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 and 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:BackgroundSerological testing provides a record of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, but assay performance requires independent assessment.MethodsWe evaluated 3 commercial (Roche Diagnostics pan-IG, and Epitope Diagnostics IgM and IgG) and 2 non-commercial (Simoa and Ragon/MGH IgG) immunoassays against 1083 unique samples that included 251 PCR-positive and 832 prepandemic samples.ResultsThe 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 postsymptom onset (PSO), <8 days PSO (57.69%) 8-14 days PSO (93.51%), 15-21 days PSO (100%), and > 21 days PSO (95.18%).ConclusionsAll assays demonstrated high to very high specificities while sensitivities were variable across assays.
| S-EPMC8420636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) for rapid detection of specific antibodies (IgM and IgG) against SARS-CoV-2 in different human specimens have been developed in response to the pandemic. The aim of this study is to evaluate three immunocromathographic assays (Sienna®, Wondfo® and Prometheus®) for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in serum samples, considering RT-qPCR as a reference. A total of 145 serum samples from 145 patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 were collected: all of the samples were tested with Sienna®, 117 with Wondfo® and 89 with Prometheus®. The overall results of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value obtained were as follows: 64.4%, 75%, 85.5% and 47.8% with Sienna®; 45.2%, 81.8%, 80.5% and 47.4% with Wondfo® and 75.5%, 12.5%, 51.4% and 29.4% with Prometheus®. The accuracy of the test for Sienna®, Wondfo® and Prometheus® was 67.6%, 59% and 47.2%, with a prevalence of COVID-19 of 69.7%, 62.4% and 55.1% respectively. Sensitivity of the three tests (Sienna®, Wondfo® and Prometheus® respectively) along the three different stages was 36.6%, 18.8% and 68.6% in the early stage (first week); 81.3%, 74.1% and 90.9% in the intermediate stage (second week) and 100%, 83.3% and 100% in the late stage (third week). The results demonstrate that even though Prometheus® presented a high sensitivity, the specificity was notably lower than the other two tests. Sienna® showed the greatest contrast between sensitivity and specificity, achieving the best accuracy, followed by Wondfo®. The sensitivity of the three ICT assays was higher in late stages of the disease.
| S-EPMC7431115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesSerologic techniques can serve as a complement to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of six immunoassays to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: three lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs), one ELISA and two chemiluminescence assays (CLIAs).MethodsWe evaluated three LFAs (Alltest, One Step and SeroFlash), one ELISA (Dia.Pro) and two CLIAs (Elecsys and COV2T). To assess the specificity, 60 pre-pandemic sera were used. To evaluate the sensitivity, we used 80 serum samples from patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Agreement between techniques was evaluated using the kappa score (k).ResultsAll immunoassays showed a specificity of 100 % except for SeroFlash (96.7 %). Overall sensitivity was 61.3 %, 73.8 %, 67.5 %, 85.9 %, 88.0 % and 92.0 % for Alltest, One Step, SeroFlash, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T, respectively. Sensitivity increased throughout the first two weeks from the onset of symptoms, reaching sensitivities over 85 % from 14 days for all LFAs, being One Step the most sensitive (97.6 %), followed by SeroFlash (95.1 %). Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T showed sensitivities over 97 % from 14 days, being 100 % for COV2T. One Step showed the best agreement results among LFAs, showing excellent agreement with Dia.Pro (agreement = 94.2 %, k = 0.884), COV2T (99.1 %, k = 0.981) and Elecsys (97.3 %, k = 0.943). Dia.Pro, COV2T and Elecsys also showed excellent agreement between them.ConclusionsOne Step, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T obtained the best diagnostic performance results. All these techniques showed a specificity of 100 % and sensitivities over 97 % from 14 days after the onset of symptoms, as well as excellent levels of agreement.
| S-EPMC7832212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-Time Reverse-Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the only recommended diagnostic method for SARS-CoV-2. However, rapid immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 antigen could significantly reduce the COVID-19 burden currently weighing on laboratories around the world.MethodsWe evaluated the performance of two rapid fluorescence immunoassays (FIAs), SOFIA SARS Antigen FIA (Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA) and STANDARD F COVID-19 Ag FIA (SD Biosensor Inc., Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea), which use an automated reader. The study used 64 RT-PCR characterized clinical samples (32 positive; 32 negative), which consisted of nasopharyngeal swabs in universal transport medium.ResultsOf the 32 positive specimens, all from patients within 5 days of symptom onset, the Quidel and SD Biosensor assays detected 30 (93.8%) and 29 (90.6%) samples, respectively. Among the 27 samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25), the two tests had a sensitivity of 100%. Specificity was 96.9% for both kits.ConclusionThe high performance of the evaluated FIAs indicates a potential use as rapid and PCR-independent tools for COVID-19 diagnosis in early stages of infection. The excellent sensitivity to detect cases with viral loads above ~106 copies/mL (Ct values ≤ 25), the estimated threshold of contagiousness, suggests that the assays might serve to rapidly identify infective individuals.
| S-EPMC7827970 | 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:IntroductionCommercially available serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 detect antibodies to either the nucleocapsid or spike protein. Here we compare the performance of the Beckman-Coulter SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay to that of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG and Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid total antibody assays. In addition, we document the trend in nucleocapsid and spike antibodies in sequential samples collected from convalescent plasma donors.MethodsPlasma or serum samples from 20 individual SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive inpatients (n = 172), 20 individual convalescent donors with a previous RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 20), were deemed positive SARS-CoV-2 samples. RT-PCR-negative inpatients (n = 24), and 109 pre-SARS-CoV-2 samples were determined to be SARS-CoV-2 negative. Samples were assayed by the Abbott, Roche, and Beckman assays.ResultsAll three assays demonstrated 100% specificity. Abbott, Beckman, and Roche platforms had sensitivities of 98%, 93%, and 90% respectively, with the difference in sensitivity attributed primarily to samples from immunocompromised patients. After the exclusion of samples immunocompromised patients, all assays exhibited ≥ 95% sensitivity. In sequential samples collected from the same individuals, the Roche nucleocapsid antibody assay demonstrated continually increasing signal intensity, with maximal values observed at the last time point examined. In contrast, the Beckman spike IgG antibody signal peaked between 14 and 28 days post positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR and steadily declined in subsequent samples. Subsequent collections 51-200 days (median of 139 days) post positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR from five inpatients and five convalescent donors revealed that spike and nucleocapsid antibodies remained detectable for several months after confirmed infection.ConclusionsThe three assays are sensitive and specific for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Nucleocapsid and spike antibodies were detectable for up to 200 days post-positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR but demonstrated markedly different trends in signal intensity.
| S-EPMC8188801 | 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: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