Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
Betacoronavirus
COVID-19
COVID-19 Testing
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
Coronavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Female
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Immunoglobulin A
/ blood
Immunoglobulin G
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ diagnosis
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
/ standards
SARS-CoV-2
Sensitivity and Specificity
Serologic Tests
/ methods
Young Adult
COVID-19
Performance assays
SARS-CoV-2
Serological assays
Journal
Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology
ISSN: 1873-5967
Titre abrégé: J Clin Virol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9815671
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
17
07
2020
accepted:
29
07
2020
pubmed:
10
8
2020
medline:
6
10
2020
entrez:
10
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats. Real-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI®, BIORAD®, EUROIMMUN®, ABBOTT® and LIAISON®). For hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI® to 69 % for LIAISON®). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses. In conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient's expectations in the face of this health crisis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Real-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI®, BIORAD®, EUROIMMUN®, ABBOTT® and LIAISON®).
RESULTS
RESULTS
For hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI® to 69 % for LIAISON®). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient's expectations in the face of this health crisis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32769023
pii: S1386-6532(20)30311-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104569
pmc: PMC7396207
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Immunoglobulin A
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
Reagent Kits, Diagnostic
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104569Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273
pubmed: 32015507
J Infect. 2020 Aug;81(2):e6-e10
pubmed: 32389784
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32381641
Nat Commun. 2020 Jul 6;11(1):3436
pubmed: 32632160
Science. 2020 May 1;368(6490):489-493
pubmed: 32179701
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104544
pubmed: 32663788
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;20(7):758-759
pubmed: 32330441
J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 1;222(9):1435-1438
pubmed: 32651586
Lab Med. 2020 Sep 1;51(5):e59-e65
pubmed: 32657343
Front Microbiol. 2020 Oct 19;11:584251
pubmed: 33193227