Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response in PCR positive patients: Comparison of nine tests in relation to clinical data.
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antibodies, Viral
/ blood
Antibody Specificity
Antigens, Viral
/ immunology
Asymptomatic Infections
/ epidemiology
Betacoronavirus
/ immunology
COVID-19
COVID-19 Testing
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
Coronavirus Infections
/ blood
Disease Progression
False Positive Reactions
Female
Humans
Immunoglobulin G
/ blood
Male
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ blood
RNA, Viral
/ blood
Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
SARS-CoV-2
Sensitivity and Specificity
Serologic Tests
/ methods
Symptom Assessment
Young Adult
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
31
07
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
entrez:
27
10
2020
pubmed:
28
10
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are available in various formats, detecting different viral target proteins and antibody subclasses. The specificity and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are known to vary and very few studies have addressed the performance of these tests in COVID-19 patient groups at different time points. We here compared the sensitivity and specificity of seven commercial (SNIBE, Epitope, Euroimmun, Roche, Abbott, DiaSorin, Biosensor) and two in-house LIPS assays (LIPS N and LIPS S-RBD) IgG/total Ab tests in serum samples from 97 COVID-19 patients and 100 controls, and correlated the results with the patients' clinical data and the time-point the test was performed. We found a remarkable variation in the sensitivity of antibody tests with the following performance: LIPS N (91.8%), Epitope (85.6%), Abbott and in-house LIPS S-RBD (both 84.5%), Roche (83.5%), Euroimmun (82.5%), DiaSorin (81.4%), SNIBE (70.1%), and Biosensor (64.9%). The overall agreement between the tests was between 71-95%, whereas the specificity of all tests was within 98-100%. The correlation with patients' clinical symptoms score ranged from strongest in LIPS N (ρ = 0.41; p<0.001) to nonsignificant in LIPS S-RBD. Furthermore, the time of testing since symptom onset had an impact on the sensitivity of some tests. Our study highlights the importance to consider clinical symptoms, time of testing, and using more than one viral antigen in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Our results suggest that some antibody tests are more sensitive for the detection of antibodies in early stage and asymptomatic patients, which may explain the contradictory results of previous studies and should be taken into consideration in clinical practice and epidemiological studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33108380
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237548
pii: PONE-D-20-23865
pmc: PMC7591045
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Antigens, Viral
0
Immunoglobulin G
0
RNA, Viral
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0237548Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have read the journal's policy and have the following competing interests: PN, KH, JH, IE are employees of SYNLAB Estonia. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1200-1204
pubmed: 32555424
Eur J Immunol. 2020 Jun 25;:
pubmed: 32584420
BMJ. 2020 Jul 1;370:m2516
pubmed: 32611558
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;98:372-380
pubmed: 32623083