RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Antibody tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection: a meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.04.22.20074914
DO 10.1101/2020.04.22.20074914
A1 Kontou, Panagiota I
A1 Braliou, Georgia G
A1 Dimou, Niki L
A1 Nikolopoulos, Georgios
A1 Bagos, Pantelis G
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/25/2020.04.22.20074914.abstract
AB Background With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the associated Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is an imperative need for diagnostic tests that can identify the infection. Although Nucleic Acid Test (NAT) is considered to be the gold standard, serological tests based on antibodies could be very helpful. However, individual studies measuring the accuracy of the various tests are usually underpowered and inconsistent, thus, a comparison of different tests is needed.Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the literature search in PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. For the statistical analysis we used the bivariate method for meta-analysis of diagnostic tests pooling sensitivities and specificities. We evaluated IgM and IgG tests based on Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassays (CLIA), Fluorescence Immunoassays (FIA) and the point-of-care (POC) Lateral Flow Immunoassays (LFIA) that are based on immunochromatography.Findings In total, we identified 38 eligible studies that include data from 7,848 individuals. The analyses showed that tests using the S antigen are more sensitive than N antigen-based tests. IgG tests perform better compared to IgM ones, and show better sensitivity when the samples were taken longer after the onset of symptoms. Moreover, irrespective of the method, a combined IgG/IgM test seems to be a better choice in terms of sensitivity than measuring either antibody type alone. All methods yielded high specificity with some of them (ELISA and LFIA) reaching levels around 99%. ELISA- and CLIA-based methods performed better in terms of sensitivity (90-94%) followed by LFIA and FIA with sensitivities ranging from 80% to 86%.Interpretation ELISA tests could be a safer choice at this stage of the pandemic. POC tests (LFIA), that are more attractive for large seroprevalence studies show high specificity but lower sensitivity and this should be taken into account when designing and performing seroprevalence studies.Funding NoneCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThere is no external fundingAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll 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.YesThis is a meta-analysis of publicly available data.