Abstract
Background SARS-CoV-2 serology tests are clinically useful to document a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with no or inconclusive PCR results and suspected COVID-19 disease or sequelae. Data are urgently needed to select the assays with optimal sensitivity at acceptable specificity.
Methods A comparative analysis of analytical sensitivity was performed of seven commercial SARS-CoV-2 serology assays on 171 sera from 135 subjects with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, composed of 71 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and 64 healthcare workers with paucisymptomatic infections. The kinetics of IgA/IgM/IgG seroconversion to viral N-and S-protein epitopes were studied from 0 to 54 days after symptom onset. Specificity was verified on 57 pre-pandemic samples.
Results Wantai SARS-COV-2 Ab ELISA and Orient Gene COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test achieved a superior overall sensitivity. Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 combined IgG/IgA also showed acceptable sensitivity (>95%) versus the consensus result of all assays from 10 days post symptom onset. Optimal specificity (>98%) was achieved only by Wantai SARS-COV-2 Ab ELISA, Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay and Innovita 2019-nCoV Ab rapid test. LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG showed a significantly lower sensitivity as compared to all other assays. Lack of seroconversion by any test was seen in 1.4% of hospitalized and 4.7% of paucisymptomatic infections. Within 10 days from symptom onset, only the Wantai SARS-COV-2 Ab ELISA has acceptable sensitivity.
Conclusions Wantai SARS-COV-2 Ab ELISA and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays are suitable for sensitive and specific screening of a SARS-CoV-2 infection from 10 days after symptom onset.
Brief summary There is an urgent need for SARS-CoV-2 serology tests for the sensitive and specific detection of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as a complementary diagnostic tool to molecular testing. Various commercial assays are becoming available but comparison of their relative performance is difficult unless they are head-to-head evaluated. Here we compared seven commercial assays on sera equally composed of mild and severe PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. Our analysis indicates a superior performance of the Wantai SARS-COV-2 ELISA for total antibodies to the S-RBD domain. Also, the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay for total antibodies to the N-protein shows good performance for high-throughput screening.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This study was not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov since it is an observational diagnostic accuracy study. All necessary IRB approvals were obtained.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a private donation by board members of Fagron (Nazareth, Belgium), a healthcare company, to RADar, the teaching and education initiative of AZ Delta General Hospital, to be used as unconditional research grant for data collection, collaborative collaboration and open access publication. The sponsor had no influence on the study design, data interpretation and drafting of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the AZ Delta ethical committee with a waiver of informed consent from the hospitalized COVID-19 patients (Clinical Trial Number IRB B1172020000009) and with written informed consent from participants with paucisymptomatic and suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections (Clinical Trial Number B1172020000006).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Footnotes
Trial registrations: Clinical Trial Numbers IRB B1172020000009 and B1172020000006
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos