Recent Advances in the Evaluation of Serological Assays for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19
Open Access
- 18 February 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Public Health
- Vol. 8, 620222
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.620222
Abstract
Introduction: Few data on the diagnostic performance of serological tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are currently available. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of five different widely used commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies using reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in nasopharyngeal swab as reference standard test. Methods: A total of 337 plasma samples collected in the period April–June 2020 from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive (n = 207) and negative (n = 130) subjects were investigated by one point-of-care lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA IgG and IgM, Technogenetics) and four fully automated assays: two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA-iFlash IgG and IgM, Shenzhen YHLO Biotech and CLIA-LIAISON® XL IgG, DiaSorin), one electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA-Elecsys® total predominant IgG, Roche), and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA IgA, Euroimmune). Results: The overall sensitivity of all IgG serological assays was >80% and the specificity was >97%. The sensitivity of IgG assays was lower within 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms ranging from 70.8 to 80%. The LFIA and CLIA-iFlash IgM showed an overall low sensitivity of 47.6 and 54.6%, while the specificity was 98.5 and 96.2%, respectively. The ELISA IgA yielded a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 81.7%. However, the ELISA IgA result was indeterminate in 11.7% of cases. Conclusions: IgG serological assays seem to be a reliable tool for the retrospective diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM assays seem to have a low sensitivity and IgA assay is limited by a substantial rate of indeterminate results.This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of Six Commercial Mid- to High-Volume Antibody and Six Point-of-Care Lateral Flow Assays for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 AntibodiesJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2020
- Clinical and Analytical Performance of an Automated Serological Test That Identifies S1/S2-Neutralizing IgG in COVID-19 Patients SemiquantitativelyJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2020
- Serology testing in the COVID-19 pandemic responseThe Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2020
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2−Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease PatientsEmerging Infectious Diseases, 2020
- Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infectionsNature Medicine, 2020
- Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19Nature Medicine, 2020
- Comparison of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay with the EDI™ enzyme linked immunosorbent assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in human plasmaClinica Chimica Acta; International Journal of Clinical Chemistry, 2020
- Evaluation of Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein-Based Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Detecting Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2020
- Evaluation of nine commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassaysPublished by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ,2020
- Profiling Early Humoral Response to Diagnose Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020