Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19:Serologic Testing
- 12 September 2020
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Clinical Infectious Diseases
Abstract
Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on eight diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.Funding Information
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (6 NU50CK000477-04-01)
This publication has 59 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Nucleocapsid Protein of SARS–CoV-2: a Target for Vaccine DevelopmentJournal of Virology, 2020
- Spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the Icelandic PopulationThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2020
- The receptor-binding domain of the viral spike protein is an immunodominant and highly specific target of antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 patientsScience Immunology, 2020
- Two linear epitopes on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that elicit neutralising antibodies in COVID-19 patientsNature Communications, 2020
- Positive rate of RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 4880 cases from one hospital in Wuhan, China, from Jan to Feb 2020Clinica Chimica Acta; International Journal of Clinical Chemistry, 2020
- Serological Approaches for COVID-19: Epidemiologic Perspective on Surveillance and ControlFrontiers in Immunology, 2020
- Neutralizing Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and Other Human CoronavirusesTrends in Immunology, 2020
- Preliminary Results of Initial Testing for Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the Emergency DepartmentWestern Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2020
- Development of rapid guidelines: 3. GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist extension for rapid recommendationsHealth Research Policy and Systems, 2018
- Antiviral antibody responses: the two extremes of a wide spectrumNature Reviews Immunology, 2006