Analytical and clinical validation of an ELISA for specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
COVID-19
/ diagnosis
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
/ standards
Female
Humans
Immunoglobulin A
/ blood
Immunoglobulin G
/ blood
Immunoglobulin M
/ blood
Intensive Care Units
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
SARS-CoV-2
/ immunology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Severity of Illness Index
Survival Analysis
COVID-19, ELISA
IgA
IgG
IgM
SARS-CoV-2
antibodies
kinetics
Journal
Journal of medical virology
ISSN: 1096-9071
Titre abrégé: J Med Virol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7705876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
22
06
2020
revised:
09
07
2020
accepted:
11
07
2020
pubmed:
16
7
2020
medline:
15
1
2021
entrez:
16
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The development of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests is massive. The external validation of their performance is needed before use in clinical routine practice. Our study aims at assessing the analytical and clinical performance of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests detecting antibodies directed against the virus nucleocapsid protein: The NovaLisa SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) test (NovaTec) allowing a separate detection of each antibody and the Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab test (Bio-Rad) detecting total antibodies (IgM, IgA, and IgG). Two-hundred and eight coronavirus disease 2019 samples from 48 quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) confirmed patients were used to perform the sensitivity analysis. Non-SARS-CoV-2 sera (n = 79) with a potential cross-reaction to SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays were included in the specificity analysis. In addition, using receiver operator characteristic curves, adapted cut-off for improvement of the performances were proposed. The kinetics of these antibodies was also assessed over 8 weeks. Two weeks after the RT-qPCR positive detection, the NovaLisa test shows a sensitivity and specificity of 94.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.1%-98.6%) and 96.2% (95% CI: 89.4%-98.7%) for IgG, of 89.7% (95% CI: 76.4%-95.9%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%-98.8%) for IgA, and of 48.7% (95% CI: 33.9%-63.8%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%-99.8%) for IgM. With the Platelia system, the specificity and sensitivity were 97.4% (95% CI: 92.1%-99.7%) and 94.9% (95% CI: 87.7%-98.0%) for total antibodies using the adapted cut-offs. The NovaLisa and the Platelia tests have satisfactory analytical performances. The clinical performances are excellent for IgG, IgA, and total antibodies especially if the cut-off is optimized.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32667733
doi: 10.1002/jmv.26303
pmc: PMC7405491
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Immunoglobulin A
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Immunoglobulin M
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
803-811Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):514-523
pubmed: 31986261
Euro Surveill. 2020 May;25(18):
pubmed: 32400364
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104468
pubmed: 32485620
Nat Med. 2020 Jun;26(6):845-848
pubmed: 32350462
Trends Immunol. 2020 May;41(5):355-359
pubmed: 32249063
J Appl Lab Med. 2020 Sep 1;5(5):908-920
pubmed: 32428207
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 27;56(2):
pubmed: 32430429
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104480
pubmed: 32505777
J Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 6;222(3):362-366
pubmed: 32473021
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 May 19;10(5):
pubmed: 32438677
J Med Virol. 2021 Feb;93(2):803-811
pubmed: 32667733
Microbes Infect. 2020 May - Jun;22(4-5):206-211
pubmed: 32425648
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):565-574
pubmed: 32213337
J Clin Virol. 2020 Jul;128:104413
pubmed: 32403010
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jul 28;58(8):1357-1364
pubmed: 32447328
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2249-2251
pubmed: 32374370
Clin Chem. 2020 Aug 1;66(8):1104-1106
pubmed: 32484887
Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Oct;509:1-7
pubmed: 32485157
Nat Commun. 2020 Jun 1;11(1):2806
pubmed: 32483236