Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.
ABSTRACT: Background: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. Method: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. Results: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. Conclusion: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.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS:Specificity was evaluated in 103 samples collected before January 2020. Sensitivity and time to seropositivity was evaluated in 167 samples from 94 patients with COVID-19 confirmed with RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. RESULTS:Specificity (confidence interval) of lateral flow assays (LFAs) was ?91.3% (84.0-95.5) for IgM, ?90.3% (82.9-94.8) for IgG, and ?85.4% (77.2-91.1) for the combination IgM OR IgG. Specificity of the ELISA was 96.1% (90.1-98.8) for IgG and only 73.8% (64.5-81.4) for IgA. Sensitivity 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was between ?92.1% (78.5-98.0) and 100% (95.7-100) for IgG LFA compared to 89.5% (75.3-96.4) for IgG ELISA. Positivity of IgM OR IgG for LFA resulted in a decrease in specificity compared to IgG alone without a gain in diagnostic performance, except for VivaDiag. The results for IgM varied significantly between the LFAs with an average overall agreement of only 70% compared to 89% for IgG. The average dynamic trend to seropositivity for IgM was not shorter than for IgG. At the time of hospital admission the sensitivity of LFA was <60%. CONCLUSIONS:Sensitivity for the detection of IgG antibodies 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was ?92.1% for all seven LFAs compared to 89.5% for the IgG ELISA. The results for IgM varied significantly, and including IgM antibodies in addition to IgG for the interpretation of LFAs did not improve the diagnostic performance.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Besides SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, serological testing is emerging as additional option in COVID-19 diagnostics. Aim of this study was to evaluate novel immunoassays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human plasma. METHODS:Using EDITM Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs), we measured SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in 64 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with serial blood samples (n = 104) collected at different time points from symptom onset. Blood samples from 200 healthy blood donors and 256 intensive care unit (ICU) patients collected before the COVID-19 outbreak were also used. RESULTS:The positivity rates in the COVID-19 patients were 5.9% for IgM and 2.9% for IgG ? 5 days after symptom onset; Between day 5 and day 10 the positivity rates were 37.1% for IgM and 37.1% for IgG and rose to 76.4% for IgM and 82.4% for IgG after > 10-15 days. After 15-22 days the "true" positivity rates were 94.4% for IgM and 100% for IgG. The "false" positivity rates were 0.5% for IgM and 1.0% for IgG in the healthy blood donors, 1.6% for IgM and 1.2% for IgG in ICU patients. CONCLUSIONS:This study shows high "true" vs. low "false" positivity rates for the EDITM SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG ELISAs.
Project description:This multicenter, retrospective study included 346 serum samples from 74 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 194 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the performance of five anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests, i.e. two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs): Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Test) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Test), and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs): Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Test), ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (ASK Test), and Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Test). We found high diagnostic sensitivities (%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Roche Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), Abbott Test (94.0%, 89.1-96.8%), Wondfo Test (91.4%, 85.8-94.9%), ASK Test (97.4%, 93.4-99.0%), and Dynamiker Test (90.1%, 84.3-94.0%) after >21 days of symptom onset. Meanwhile, the diagnostic specificity was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.3-99.7%) for the Roche Test, 97.9% (95% CI, 94.8-99.2%) for the Abbott Test, and 100.0% (95% CI, 98.1-100.0%) for the three LFIAs. Cross-reactivity was observed in sera containing anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgG/IgM antibodies and autoantibodies. No difference was observed in the time to seroconversion detection of the five serological tests. Specimens from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia demonstrated a shorter seroconversion time and higher chemiluminescent signal than those without pneumonia. Our data suggested that understanding the dynamic antibody response after COVID-19 infection and performance characteristics of different serological test are crucial for the appropriate interpretation of serological test result for the diagnosis and risk assessment of patient with COVID-19 infection.
Project description:Rapid and accurate diagnosis is crucial for successful outbreak containment. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis is the detection of viral RNA. Additional diagnostic methods õenabling the detection of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection would be highly beneficial. We assessed 2 immunochromatographic lateral flow assays (LFA-1, LFA-2) and 2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits (IgA/IgG ELISA-1, IgM/IgG ELISA-2) using 325 samples: serum samples from polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients (n?=?55) and healthcare workers (n?=?143) and 127 samples from negative controls. Diagnostic performances were assessed according to days after symptom onset (dso) and the antigenic format used by manufacturers. Clinical sensitivities varied greatly among the assays, showing poor mutual agreement. After 15 dso, ELISA-1 (Euroimmun) and LFA-1 (Biosynex) combining IgM and IgG detection showed the best performances. A thorough selection of serological assays for the detection of ongoing or past infections is advisable.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To assess the diagnostic performance of rapid lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFAs) compared with an ELISA and nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) in individuals with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS:Patients presenting to a Dutch teaching hospital were eligible between 17 March and 10 April 2020, when they had respiratory symptoms that were suspected for COVID-19. The performances of six different LFAs were evaluated in plasma samples obtained on corresponding respiratory sample dates of NATs testing. Subsequently, the best performing LFA was evaluated in 228 patients and in 50 sera of a historical patient control group. RESULTS:In the pilot analysis, sensitivity characteristics of LFA were heterogeneous, ranging from 2/20 (10%; 95% CI 0%-23%) to 11/20 (55%; 95% CI 33%-77%). In the total cohort, Orient Gene Biotech COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test LFA had a sensitivity of 43/99 (43%; 95% CI 34%-53%) and specificity of 126/129 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%). Sensitivity increased to 31/52 (60%; 95% CI 46%-73%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms, and to 21/33 (64%; 95% CI 47%-80%) in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) ?100 mg/L. Sensitivity and specificity of Wantai SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA was 59/95 (62%; 95% CI 52%-72%) and 125/128 (98%; 95% CI 95%-100%) in all patients, respectively, but sensitivity increased to 38/48 (79%; 95% CI 68%-91%) in patients with at least 7 days of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:There is large variability in diagnostic test performance between rapid LFAs, but overall limited sensitivity and high specificity in acutely admitted patients. Sensitivity improved in patients with longer existing symptoms or high CRP. LFAs should only be considered as additional triage tools when these may lead to the improvement of hospital logistics.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effects of heat inactivation of blood samples at 56? for 30 min on the results of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection using different methods. METHODS:This retrospective study was conducted in 11 patients with established diagnosis of COVID-19 and 10 patients with diseases other than COVID- 19 in our hospital. We collected samples of serum, plasma and whole blood from each patient between February, 12 and 18, 2020, and with a double- blind design, the samples were examined for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies before and after heat inactivation at 56 ? for 30 min. In all the samples, the total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected using immunochromatography, and the IgM antibodies were detected using fluorescence immunochromatography; the IgM and IgG antibodies in the serum and plasma samples detected with chemiluminescence immunoassay. We compared the detection results and analyzed the correlation of semi-quantitative detection results of IgM and IgG antibodies before and after heat inactivation of the samples. RESULTS:With immuno-chromatography, the coincidence rate of the total SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection before and after heat inactivation of the serum and plasma samples was 90.0% in COVID-19 cases and 100.0% in the negative cases, resulting in a total coincidence rate 95.2%; for the whole blood samples, the total coincidence rates of the total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were 100.0%. For detection of IgM antibodies in the serum, plasma and whole blood samples using fluorescence immunochromatography, the coincidence rates in SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative cases and the total coincidence rate before and after inactivation were 100.0%, 0 and 47.6%, respectively. For detection of serum IgM and IgG antibodies and plasma IgG antibodies with chemiluminescence immunoassay, the coincidence rates in SARS-CoV-2-positive and negative cases and the total coincidence rate before and after inactivation were all 100.0%, and the total coincidence rate of plasma IgM antibodies was 95.2%. Pearson correlation analysis of the semi-quantitative results of IgM and IgG detection in the serum and plasma samples showed a correlation coefficient of 0.9999 (95%CI: 0.9998-1.000, P < 0.001) between the results before and after sample inactivation. CONCLUSIONS:Heat inactivation of blood samples at 56 ? for 30 min does not obviously affect the results of immunochromatography and chemiluminescent immunoassay for detection of SARS-COV-2 antibodies but can reduce the risk of infection for the operators. Heat-inactivated samples can not be used in fluorescence immunochromatography for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Here, we report on a head-to-head comparison of the fully-automated Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay with the EDITM enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human plasma. METHODS:SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were measured with the Elecsys® assay and the EDITM ELISAs (IgM and IgG) in 64 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients with serial blood samples (n = 104) collected at different time points from symptom onset. Blood samples from 200 healthy blood donors and 256 intensive care unit (ICU) patients collected before the COVID-19 outbreak were also used. RESULTS:In COVID-19 patients, the percentage of positive results rose with time from symptom onset, peaking to positivity rates after 15-22 days of 100% for the Elecsys® assay, of 94% for the EDITM IgM-ELISA and of 100% for the EDITM IgG ELISA. In the 104 blood samples, the agreement between positive/negative classifications of the Elecsys® assay and the EDITM ELISAs (IgM or IgG) was 90%. The false positivity rates in the healthy blood donors and the ICU patients were < 1% for the Elecsys® assay and < 3% for the EDITM ELISAs. CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate a high sensitivity and specificity for the Elecsys® assay and an acceptable agreement with the EDITM ELISAs.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an emerging threat worldwide. This study aims to assess the serologic profiles and time kinetics of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients with COVID-19 using two immunoassays.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 97 samples serially collected from 17 patients with COVID-19 and 137 negative control samples were analyzed for IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 using the AFIAS COVID-19 Ab (Boditech Med Inc., Chuncheon, Republic of Korea) and the EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA Kit (Epitope Diagnostics, Inc., San Diego, CA).<h4>Results</h4>With both assays, IgM and IgG rapidly increased after 7 days post symptom onset (PSO). IgM antibody levels reached a peak at 15-35 d PSO and gradually decreased. IgG levels gradually increased and remained at similar levels after 22-35 d. The diagnostic sensitivities of IgM/IgG for ?14d PSO were 21.4%/35.7~57.1% and increased to 41.2~52.9%/88.2~94.1% at >14 d PSO with specificities of 98.5%/94.2% for AFIAS COVID-19 Ab and 100.0%/96.4% for EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA Kit. Among 137 negative controls, 12 samples (8.8%) showed positive or indeterminate results.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The antibody kinetics against SARS-CoV-2 are similar to common findings of acute viral infectious diseases. Antibody testing is useful for ruling out SARS-CoV-2 infection after 14 d PSO, detecting past infection, and epidemiologic surveys.
Project description:As the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2, continues to spread rapidly around the world, there is a need for well validated serological assays that allow the detection of viral specific antibody responses in COVID-19 patients or recovered individuals. In this study, we established and used multiple indirect Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)-based serological assays to study the antibody response in COVID-19 patients. In order to validate the assays we determined the cut off values, sensitivity and specificity of the assays using sera collected from pre-pandemic healthy controls, COVID-19 patients at different time points after disease-onset, and seropositive sera to other human coronaviruses (CoVs). The developed SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit of the spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid (N)-based ELISAs not only showed high specificity and sensitivity but also did not show any cross-reactivity with other CoVs. We also show that all RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients tested in our study developed both virus specific IgM and IgG antibodies as early as week one after disease onset. Our data also suggest that the inclusion of both S1 and N in serological testing would capture as many potential SARS-CoV-2 positive cases as possible than using any of them alone. This is specifically important for tracing contacts and cases and conducting large-scale epidemiological studies to understand the true extent of virus spread in populations.
Project description:There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance along with four commercial ELISAs, EDI™ Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP® COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the probable causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were evaluated using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of false positive results from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, assays lacked reproducibility. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with the same antigen that was used for coating ELISAs prior to performing the assay), suggesting positive reaction could be attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by the spiking, suggesting positive reaction was not attributed to the presence of antibodies against these antigens. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the corresponding antigen, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.