Abstract
Objectives: Serologic techniques can serve as a complement to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of six immunoassays to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: three lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs), one ELISA and two chemiluminescence assays (CLIAs).
Methods: We evaluated three LFAs (Alltest, One Step and SeroFlash), one ELISA (Dia.Pro) and 34 two CLIAs (Elecsys and COV2T). To assess the specificity, 60 pre-pandemic sera were 35 used. To evaluate the sensitivity, we used 80 serum samples from patients with 36 positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Agreement between techniques was evaluated using the kappa score (k).
Results All immunoassays showed a specificity of 100% except for SeroFlash (96.7%). Overall sensitivity was 61.3%, 73.8%, 67.5%, 85.9%, 88.0% and 92.0% for Alltest, One Step, SeroFlash, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T, respectively. Sensitivity increased throughout the first two weeks from the onset of symptoms, reaching sensitivities over 85% from 14 days for all LFAs, being One Step the most sensitive (97.6%), followed by SeroFlash (95.1%). Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T showed sensitivities over 97% from 14 days, being 100% for COV2T. One Step showed the best agreement results among LFAs, showing excellent agreement with Dia.Pro (agreement=94.2%, k=0.884), COV2T (99.1%, k=0.981) and Elecsys (97.3%, k=0.943). Dia.Pro, COV2T and Elecsys also showed excellent agreement between them.
Conclusion One Step, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T obtained the best diagnostic performanc e results. All these techniques showed a specificity of 100% and sensitivities over 97% from 14 days after the onset of symptoms, as well as excellent levels of agreement.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
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 conducted according to the ethical requirements established by the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethics Committee of Hospital Universitario Principe de Asturias (Madrid) approved the study (protocol code: Comparativa Sero-COVID).
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
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
1
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos