Cargando…

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets

BACKGROUND: These last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests available in April 2020 in Switzerland. METHODS: In a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serolog...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coste, Alix T., Jaton, Katia, Papadimitriou-Olivgeris, Matthaios, Greub, Gilbert, Croxatto, Antony
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier B.V. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33253926
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104690
_version_ 1783610846418567168
author Coste, Alix T.
Jaton, Katia
Papadimitriou-Olivgeris, Matthaios
Greub, Gilbert
Croxatto, Antony
author_facet Coste, Alix T.
Jaton, Katia
Papadimitriou-Olivgeris, Matthaios
Greub, Gilbert
Croxatto, Antony
author_sort Coste, Alix T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: These last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests available in April 2020 in Switzerland. METHODS: In a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other viruses. RESULTS: In the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, five had a sensitivity and specificity above 90 % and 98 % respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no test showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the evaluated tests exhibited high performances of IgG/pan-Ig sensitivity and specificity to detect the serological response of moderately to critically ill hospitalized patients. The IgM and IgA tests showed mostly insufficient performances with no added value for the early diagnostic on the cohort tested in this study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7670982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier B.V.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76709822020-11-18 Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets Coste, Alix T. Jaton, Katia Papadimitriou-Olivgeris, Matthaios Greub, Gilbert Croxatto, Antony J Clin Virol Article BACKGROUND: These last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests available in April 2020 in Switzerland. METHODS: In a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other viruses. RESULTS: In the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, five had a sensitivity and specificity above 90 % and 98 % respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no test showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the evaluated tests exhibited high performances of IgG/pan-Ig sensitivity and specificity to detect the serological response of moderately to critically ill hospitalized patients. The IgM and IgA tests showed mostly insufficient performances with no added value for the early diagnostic on the cohort tested in this study. Elsevier B.V. 2021-01 2020-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7670982/ /pubmed/33253926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104690 Text en © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Coste, Alix T.
Jaton, Katia
Papadimitriou-Olivgeris, Matthaios
Greub, Gilbert
Croxatto, Antony
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets
title Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets
title_full Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets
title_fullStr Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets
title_short Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets
title_sort comparison of sars-cov-2 serological tests with different antigen targets
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33253926
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104690
work_keys_str_mv AT costealixt comparisonofsarscov2serologicaltestswithdifferentantigentargets
AT jatonkatia comparisonofsarscov2serologicaltestswithdifferentantigentargets
AT papadimitriouolivgerismatthaios comparisonofsarscov2serologicaltestswithdifferentantigentargets
AT greubgilbert comparisonofsarscov2serologicaltestswithdifferentantigentargets
AT croxattoantony comparisonofsarscov2serologicaltestswithdifferentantigentargets