PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Laurent Dortet
AU  - Jean-Baptiste Ronat
AU  - Christelle Vauloup-Fellous
AU  - Céline Langendorf
AU  - David-Alexis Mendels
AU  - Cécile Emeraud
AU  - Saoussen Oueslati
AU  - Delphine Girlich
AU  - Anthony Chauvin
AU  - Ali Afdjei
AU  - Sandrine Bernabeu
AU  - Samuel le Pape
AU  - Rim Kallala
AU  - Alice Rochard
AU  - Celine Verstuyft
AU  - Nicolas Fortineau
AU  - Anne-Marie Roque-Afonso
AU  - Thierry Naas
TI  - Evaluating ten commercially-available SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests using the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) method
AID  - 10.1101/2020.09.10.20192260
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.09.10.20192260
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/11/2020.09.10.20192260.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/11/2020.09.10.20192260.full
AB  - Numerous SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests have been developed, but their accuracy has usually been assessed using very few samples, and rigorous comparisons between these tests are scarce. In this study, we evaluated and compared 10 commercially-available SARS-CoV2 rapid serological tests using the STARD methodology (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). 250 sera from 159 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (collected from 0 to 32 days after onset of symptoms) were tested with rapid serological tests. Control sera (N=254) were retrieved from pre-COVID periods from patients with other coronavirus infections (N=11), positive rheumatoid factors (N=3), IgG/IgM hyperglobulinemia (N=9), malaria (n=5), or no documented viral infection (N=226). All samples were tested using rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) from ten manufacturers. Only four tests achieved ≥98% specificity, with other tests ranging from 75.7%-99.2%. Sensitivities varied by the day of sample collection, from 31.7%-55.4% (Days 0-9), 65.9%92.9% (Days 10-14), and 81.0%-95.2% (>14 days) after the onset of symptoms, respectively. Only three tests evaluated met French Health Authorities’ thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 serological tests (≥90% sensitivity + ≥98% specificity). Overall, the performances between tests varied greatly, with only a third meeting acceptable specificity and sensitivity thresholds. Knowing the analytical performance of these tests will allow clinicians to use them with more confidence, could help determine the general population’s immunological status, and may diagnose some patients with false-negative RT-PCR results.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was supported by Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris (APHP), Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), and by a Grant from the French Defence Innovation Agency (AID).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All samples were from a Bio-bank (BIOCOVID-19) after having received ethical clearance from the Patient Protection Committee (PPC) of the Ile-de-France VII (No. 2009-965). Blood samples from patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, who were subjected to routine testing as part of clinical management but whose serum samples had not been entirely used for clinical purposes, were approved for use in this study. The biobank is stored in CRB Paris South (BRIF: BB-0033-00089). The planning, conduct, and reporting of studies was in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available on request