Differences of SARS-CoV-2 serological test performance between hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases.
COVID-19
SARS-CoV-2
Serological assay
Journal
Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry
ISSN: 1873-3492
Titre abrégé: Clin Chim Acta
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 1302422
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
03
08
2020
revised:
08
10
2020
accepted:
26
10
2020
pubmed:
8
11
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
7
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Serological severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays differ in the target antigen specificity, e.g. of antibodies directed against the viral spike or the nucleocapsid protein, and in the spectrum of detected immunoglobulins. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of two different routinely used immunoassays in hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases. The test characteristics of commercially available spike1 protein-based serological assays (Euroimmun, EI-assays), determining IgA or IgG and nucleocapsid-based assays (Virotech, VT-assays) determining IgA, IgM or IgG were compared in 139 controls and 116 hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 51; 115 samples) showed significantly higher concentrations of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and differed from outpatient cases (n = 65) by higher age, higher disease severity scores and earlier follow up blood sampling. Sensitivity of the two IgG assays was comparable in hospitalized patients tested ≥ 14 days (EI-assay: 88%, CI Our results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 serological assays may need to be optimized to produce reliable results in outpatient COVID-19 cases who are low or even asymptomatic. Assays for IgA and IgM have limited diagnostic performance and do not prove an additional value for population-based screening approaches.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Serological severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assays differ in the target antigen specificity, e.g. of antibodies directed against the viral spike or the nucleocapsid protein, and in the spectrum of detected immunoglobulins. The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of two different routinely used immunoassays in hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases.
METHODS
METHODS
The test characteristics of commercially available spike1 protein-based serological assays (Euroimmun, EI-assays), determining IgA or IgG and nucleocapsid-based assays (Virotech, VT-assays) determining IgA, IgM or IgG were compared in 139 controls and 116 hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n = 51; 115 samples) showed significantly higher concentrations of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and differed from outpatient cases (n = 65) by higher age, higher disease severity scores and earlier follow up blood sampling. Sensitivity of the two IgG assays was comparable in hospitalized patients tested ≥ 14 days (EI-assay: 88%, CI
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 serological assays may need to be optimized to produce reliable results in outpatient COVID-19 cases who are low or even asymptomatic. Assays for IgA and IgM have limited diagnostic performance and do not prove an additional value for population-based screening approaches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33159952
pii: S0009-8981(20)30517-9
doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.10.035
pmc: PMC7642750
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
352-359Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
J Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 29;222(2):206-213
pubmed: 32427334
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1200-1204
pubmed: 32555424
Cell Mol Immunol. 2020 Jul;17(7):773-775
pubmed: 32467617
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
Gastroenterology. 2017 Aug;153(2):410-419.e17
pubmed: 28461188
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104544
pubmed: 32663788
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104512
pubmed: 32563180
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018 Oct;67(4):494-500
pubmed: 29901554
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 May 26;58(6):
pubmed: 32229605
J Clin Virol. 2020 Sep;130:104542
pubmed: 32707511
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273
pubmed: 32015507
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Aug 3;58(12):2113-2120
pubmed: 32745068
Clin Chem. 2020 Aug 1;66(8):1055-1062
pubmed: 32402061
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2027-2034
pubmed: 32221519
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Nov;26(11):1557.e1-1557.e7
pubmed: 32745595
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Jul 23;58(8):
pubmed: 32513859
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):2243-2247
pubmed: 32510168
Lancet. 2020 Aug 1;396(10247):313-319
pubmed: 32534626
Commun Biol. 2021 Jan 29;4(1):129
pubmed: 33514825
J Clin Invest. 2020 Apr 1;130(4):1545-1548
pubmed: 32167489
Clin Chem. 2020 Aug 1;66(8):1104-1106
pubmed: 32484887
Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Oct;509:1-7
pubmed: 32485157