Clinical Performance of A Semi-Quantitative Assay for SARS-CoV2 IgG and SARS-CoV2 IgM Antibodies.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:While the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is primarily based on detection of viral RNA, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is useful for assessing past prevalence of the disease, and in corroborating a current infection in challenging cases. Sensitive and specific immunoassays provide the ability to identify exposure to SARS-CoV-2, to determine seroconversion, to confirm eligibility for donation of convalescent plasma as well as play an essential part in epidemiological studies. We report on the validation of the Ansh Laboratories SARS-CoV-2 IgG and SARS-CoV-2 IgM ELISA immunoassays. These assays were evaluated for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies for clinical use in our hospital as part of an orthogonal testing algorithm recommended by the CDC. METHODS:Diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of the IgG and IgM ELISA assays were tested using samples confirmed to be negative or positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. We also evaluated precision, analytical interference, and cross-reactivity with known cases of infection with other viruses. Additionally, we validated concordance with molecular and other serological testing and evaluated seroconversion in our patient population. RESULTS:The IgG and IgM ELISA assays showed acceptable precision, were robust to analytical interference and did not exhibit cross reactivity with specimens positive for common respiratory viruses. Both assays exhibited 95% agreement with a primary screening serological assay utilized at our institution as well as with a reference laboratory semi-quantitative method. Concordance with RT-PCR was excellent >6 days after symptom onset (100%). CONCLUSIONS:The Ansh SARS-CoV-2 ELISA assays have good analytical performance suitable for clinical use.
Project description:The purpose of this study is to monitor specific anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (anti-SARS-CoV-2) IgG and IgM antibody production in patients with severe forms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using various commercially available quantitative and qualitative tests. The sera of 23 confirmed COVID-19 patients were processed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM detection. Three different immunoassays, viz. Abbott Architect<sup>®</sup> SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, and two quantitative tests, ANSH<sup>®</sup> SARS-CoV-2 and AESKULISA<sup>®</sup> SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein (NP), were performed and the results pooled, from diagnosis to serum collection. Seroconversion rates were computed for all 3 assays, and possible correlations were tested using the Pearson correlation coefficient and Cohen's kappa coefficient. Overall, 70 combinations of qualitative and quantitative IgG and IgM results were pooled and analyzed. In the early phase (0-4 days after diagnosis), in all tests, IgG seroconversion rates were 43%-61%, and increased in all tests gradually to 100% after 15 days. The Pearson correlation coefficient showed a strong positive relationship between the qualitative IgG test results and both quantitative IgG tests. IgM detection was inconsistent, with maximal concentrations and seroconversion rates between 10-15 days after diagnosis and slight-to-fair agreement between the two quantitative immunoassays. There was no significant association between mortality with IgG or IgM seroconversion or concentrations. Patients with severe COVID-19 develop an early, robust anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral immune response involving IgG immunoglobulins. Further comparative studies are warranted to analyze the value of serological testing in predicting the severity of COVID-19 and detecting prior exposure.
Project description:Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are urgently needed for diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how recently commercially available, high-throughput immunoassays, using different recombinant SARS-CoV-2 antigens, perform with clinical samples. Focusing on IgG and total antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of four automated immunoassays (Abbott Architect™ i2000 (N protein-based)), Roche cobas™ e 411 analyzer (N protein-based, not differentiating between IgA, IgM or IgG antibodies), LIAISON®XL platform (S1 and S2 protein-based), VIRCLIA® automation system (S1 and N protein-based) in comparison to two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG (S1 protein-based) and Virotech SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA (N protein-based)) and an in-house developed plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. When calculating the overall sensitivity, in a time frame of 49 days after first PCR-positivity, the PRNT as gold standard, showed the highest sensitivity with 93.3% followed by the dual-target assay for the VIRCLIA® automation system with 89%. The overall sensitivity in the group of N protein-based assays ranged from 66.7 to 77.8% and in the S protein-based-assays from 71.1 to 75.6%. Five follow-up samples of three individuals were only detected in either an S and/or N protein-based assay, indicating an individual different immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and the influence of the used assay in the detection of IgG antibodies. This should be further analysed. The specificity of the examined assays was ? 97%. However, because of the low or unknown prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, the examined assays in this study are currently primarily eligible for epidemiological investigations, as they have limited information in individual testing.
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.
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:<b>Objectives: </b>Several serological SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays have been developed recently but require external validation before widespread use. This study aims at assessing the analytical and clinical performance of the iFlash® anti-SARS-CoV-2 chemiluminescence assay for the detection of both IgM and IgG antibodies. The kinetics of the antibody response was also evaluated.<br><br><b>Design & methods: </b>The precision, carry-over, linearity, limit of blank, detection and quantification were assessed. Sensitivity analysis was performed by using 178 sera collected from 154 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. The specificity analysis was performed from 75 selected non-SARS-CoV-2 sera with a potential cross-reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay.<br><br><b>Results: </b>This iFlash® SARS-CoV-2 assay showed excellent analytical performance. After 2 weeks since symptom onset, the sensitivities for IgM and IgG were 62.2% (95% CI: 52.3-71.2%) and 92.9%% (95% CI: 85.7-96.7%), respectively by using the cut-off provided by the manufacturer. After cut-off optimization (i.e. >2.81 for IgM and >4.86 for IgG), the sensitivity for IgM and IgG were 81.6 (95% CI: 72.7-88.1%) and 95.9% (95% CI: 89.4-98.7%), respectively. Optimized cut-off for IgG improved the sensitivity to reach 100% (95%CI: 87.6-100) from 28 days since symptom onset.<br><br><b>Conclusions: </b>This study shows that the iFlash® SARS-CoV-2 assay from YHLO biotechnology, has satisfactory analytical performance. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the IgM is limited for a proper clinical use compared to IgG. The determination of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies from 28 days since symptom onset was associated with high sensitivity, especially using optimized cut-offs (i.e. 100%).
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.
Project description:Immunoassays are a standard diagnostic tool that assesses immunity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, immunoassays do not provide information about contaminating antigens or cross-reactions and might exhibit inaccurately high sensitivity and low specificity. We aimed to gain insight into the serological immune response of SARS-CoV-2 patients by immunoblot analysis. We analyzed serum immunoglobulins IgM, -A, and -G directed against SARS-CoV-2 proteins by immunoblot analysis from 12 infected patients. We determined IgG isotype antibodies by commercially available ELISA and assessed the clinical parameters of inflammation status and kidney and liver injury. Unexpectedly, we found no correlation between the presence of antibodies and the future course of the disease. However, attention should be paid to the parameters CRP, IL-6, and LDH. We found evidence of antibody cross-reactivity, which questions the reliability of results for serum samples that tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies when assessed by immunoassays. Nevertheless, for the detection of IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, our data suggest that the use of the spike glycoprotein in immunoassays should be sufficient to identify positive patients. Using a combination of the spike glycoprotein and the open reading frame 8 protein could prove to be the best way of detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM antibodies.
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.
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:<h4>Objective</h4>Numerous 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.<h4>Methods</h4>This 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).<h4>Results</h4>Overall 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%.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Assays from different vendors substantially varied in terms of their performance. These findings might facilitate selection of appropriate serological assays.