SARS-CoV-2 Serology: Much Hype, Little Data

An Original ELISA-Based Multiplex Method for the Simultaneous Detection of 5 SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies Directed against Different Antigens

Strategies to detect SARS-CoV-2 are increasingly being developed. Among them, serological methods have been developed. Nevertheless, although these may present an interesting clinical performance, they are often directed against only one antigen. This study aims at evaluating the clinical performance of an innovative multiplex immunoassay (i.e., CoViDiag assay) detecting simultaneously the presence of antibodies directed against N, S1, S2, RBD and NTD antigens. Sensitivity was evaluated in 135 samples obtained from 94 rRT-PCR confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Non-SARS-CoV-2 sera (n = 132) collected before the COVID-19 pandemic with potential cross-reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay were included in the specificity analysis. The antibody signature was also studied in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. The specificity of the CoViDiag assay was excellent for all antibodies (99.2 to 100%) using adapted cut-offs. None of the false positive samples were positive for more than one antibody. The sensitivity obtained from samples collected 14 days since symptom onset varied from 92.0 to 100.0% depending on the antibody considered. Among samples collected more than 14 days after symptom onset, 12.8, 66.3, 3.5, 9.3, 5.8 and 2.3% were positive for 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or 0 antibodies, respectively. A trend toward higher antibody titers was observed in hospitalized patient in the early days since symptom onset. However, no significant difference was observed compared to non-hospitalized patients after 14 days since symptom onset. The clinical performance of the CoViDiag 5 IgG assay is sufficient to recommend its use for the detection and the characterization of the antibody signature following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The combination of several antigens in the same test improves the overall specificity and sensitivity of the test. Further research is needed to investigate whether this strategy may be of interest to identify severe disease outcome in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Three Fully Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays with a Focus on Specificity

BACKGROUND

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous new serological test systems for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies rapidly have become available. However, the clinical performance of many of these is still insufficiently described. Therefore, we compared 3 commercial CE-marked, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays side by side.

METHODS

We included a total of 1154 specimens from pre-COVID-19 times and 65 samples from COVID-19 patients (≥14 days after symptom onset) to evaluate the test performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin.

RESULTS

All 3 assays presented with high specificities: 99.2% (98.6-99.7) for Abbott, 99.7% (99.2-100.0) for Roche, and 98.3% (97.3-98.9) for DiaSorin. In contrast to the manufacturers' specifications, sensitivities only ranged from 83.1% to 89.2%. Although the 3 methods were in good agreement (Cohen's Kappa 0.71-0.87), McNemar tests revealed significant differences between results obtained from Roche and DiaSorin. However, at low seroprevalences, the minor differences in specificity resulted in profound discrepancies of positive predictive values at 1% seroprevalence: 52.3% (36.2-67.9), 77.6% (52.8-91.5), and 32.6% (23.6-43.1) for Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We found diagnostically relevant differences in specificities for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin that have a significant impact on the positive predictive values of these tests.

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples

BACKGROUND

For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance of recently launched commercial immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

METHODS

51 serum samples from 26 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after end of quarantine and 25 control patients were analyzed using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope to assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 20 matching pairs of serum and plasma samples were included to analyze comparability between different specimens.

RESULTS

Overall, a diagnostic sensitivity of 92.3%, 96.2-100% and 100% with a respective diagnostic specificity of 100%, 100% and 84-86% for the immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope were determined. In total, 84-96% of samples were correctly classified as negative and 92.3-95.2% as positive. The level of concordance between plasma- and serum-based testing diverged between the assays (Epitope r2 = 0.97; Euroimmun r2 = 0.91; Roche r2 = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

The immunoassays from Euroimmun and Roche revealed a higher specificity than the Epitope assay without a substantial drop of diagnostic sensitivity. Significant differences between plasma- and serum-based testing highlights the need for determination of appropriate cut-offs per specimen type. Hence, there is an urgent need for test harmonization and establishment of quality standards for an appropriate use of COVID-19 serological tests.

Capillary whole-blood IgG-IgM COVID-19 self-test as a serological screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection adapted to the general public

The practicability of a prototype capillary whole-blood IgG-IgM COVID-19 self-test (Exacto® COVID-19 self-test, Biosynex Swiss SA, Freiburg, Switzerland) as a serological screening tool for SARS-CoV-2 infection adapted to the general public was evaluated in a cross-sectional, general adult population study performed between April and May 2020 in Strasbourg, France, consisting of face-to-face, paper-based, semi-structured, and self-administrated questionnaires. Practicability was defined as the correct use of the self-test and the correct interpretation of the result. The correct use of self-test was conditioned by the presence of the control band after 15-min of migration. The correct interpretation of the tests was defined by the percent agreement between the tests results read and interpret by the participants compared to the expected results coded by the numbers and verified by trained observers. A total of 167 participants (52.7% female; median age, 35.8 years; 82% with post-graduate level) were enrolled, including 83 and 84 for usability and test results interpretation substudies, respectively. All participants (100%; 95% CI: 95.6-100) correctly used the self-test. However, 12 (14.5%; 95% CI: 8.5-23.6) asked for verbal help. The percent agreement between the tests results read and interpret by the participants compared to the expected results was 98.5% (95% CI: 96.5-99.4). However, misinterpretation occurred in only 2.3% of positive and 1.2% of invalid test results. Finally, all (100%) participants found that performing the COVID-19 self-test was easy; and 98.8% found the interpretation of the self-test results easy. Taken together, these pilot observations demonstrated for the first-time, high practicability and satisfaction of COVID-19 self-testing for serological IgG and IgM immune status, indicating its potential for use by the general public to complete the arsenal of available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in the urgent context of the COVID-19 epidemic.

Multicenter evaluation of two chemiluminescence and three lateral flow immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody dynamic responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Taiwan

This multicenter, retrospective study included 346 serum samples from 74 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 194 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients to evaluate the performance of five anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests, i.e. two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs): Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche Test) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Test), and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs): Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Test), ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (ASK Test), and Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Dynamiker Test). We found high diagnostic sensitivities (%, 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the Roche Test (97.4%, 93.4–99.0%), Abbott Test (94.0%, 89.1–96.8%), Wondfo Test (91.4%, 85.8–94.9%), ASK Test (97.4%, 93.4–99.0%), and Dynamiker Test (90.1%, 84.3–94.0%) after >21 days of symptom onset. Meanwhile, the diagnostic specificity was 99.0% (95% CI, 96.3–99.7%) for the Roche Test, 97.9% (95% CI, 94.8–99.2%) for the Abbott Test, and 100.0% (95% CI, 98.1–100.0%) for the three LFIAs. Cross-reactivity was observed in sera containing anti-cytomegalovirus (CMV) IgG/IgM antibodies and autoantibodies. No difference was observed in the time to seroconversion detection of the five serological tests. Specimens from patients with COVID-19 pneumonia demonstrated a shorter seroconversion time and higher chemiluminescent signal than those without pneumonia. Our data suggested that understanding the dynamic antibody response after COVID-19 infection and performance characteristics of different serological test are crucial for the appropriate interpretation of serological test result for the diagnosis and risk assessment of patient with COVID-19 infection.

Clinical Ordering Practices of the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test at a Large Academic Medical Center

Background

The novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) originated in December 2019 and has now infected almost 5 million people in the United States. In the spring of 2020, private laboratories and some hospitals began antibody testing despite limited evidence-based guidance.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from May 14, 2020, to June 15, 2020, at a large academic medical center, 1 of the first in the United States to provide antibody testing capability to individual clinicians in order to identify clinician-described indications for antibody testing compared with current expert-based guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Results

Of 444 individual antibody test results, the 2 most commonly described testing indications, apart from public health epidemiology studies (n = 223), were for patients with a now resolved COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 105) with no previous molecular testing and for asymptomatic patients believed to have had a past exposure to a person with COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 60). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing among those indications consistent with current IDSA and CDC guidance was 17% compared with 5% (P < .0001) among those indications inconsistent with such guidance. Testing inconsistent with current expert-based guidance accounted for almost half of testing costs.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate a dissociation between clinician-described indications for testing and expert-based guidance and a significantly different rate of positive testing between these 2 groups. Clinical curiosity and patient preference appear to have played a significant role in testing decisions and substantially contributed to testing costs.

IFCC Interim Guidelines on Serological Testing of Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

Serological testing for the detection of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is emerging as an important component of the clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as well as the epidemiological assessment of SARS-CoV-2 exposure worldwide. In addition to molecular testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, clinical laboratories have also needed to increase testing capacity to include serological evaluation of patients with suspected or known COVID-19. While regulatory approved serological immunoassays are now widely available from diagnostic manufacturers globally, there is significant debate regarding the clinical utility of these tests, as well as their clinical and analytical performance requirements prior to application. This document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 provides interim guidance on: (A) clinical indications and target populations, (B) assay selection, (C) assay evaluation, and (D) test interpretation and limitations for serological testing of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These evidence-based recommendations will provide practical guidance to clinical laboratories in the selection, verification, and implementation of serological assays and are of the utmost importance as we expand our pandemic response from initial case tracing and containment to mitigation strategies to minimize resurgence and further morbidity and mortality.

Seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Taiwan revealed by testing anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological antibodies on 14,765 hospital patients

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a worldwide pandemic and affected more than 227 countries or territories, resulting in more than 25 million cases with over 0•85 million deaths, as of September 2, 2020. Taiwan has been successful in countering the COVID-19 outbreak, however, the potential risk for asymptomatic infections and the prevalence rates remain unknown. We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence of COVID-19 in Taiwan via serologically testing hospital patients with neither symptoms indicative of nor positive nucleic acid test for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

Residual specimens from laboratory blood tests for outpatient and emergency department patients visiting a medical centre in Taipei, Taiwan, within one week in May and another in July, 2020, were collected. We used Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Assay to screen and further validated cases with high cutoff index by a confirmatory ELISA assay. We also analysed antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 along disease progression in four nucleic acid test confirmed COVID-19 patients.

FINDINGS

Blood samples from a total of 14,765 patients were tested. The unweighted seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 0•07% [95% CI, 0•04%-0•13%]; after weighting with the population demographics of Taiwan, the estimated overall seroprevalence was 0•05% [95% CI, 0•02%-0•10%]. Furthermore, based on data of the four COVID-19 cases, the seroconversion dates for IgM were as early as 9 days and that for IgG 11 days after symptoms onset.

INTERPRETATION

We screened the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a small-scale population-based study and observed an approximately 0•05% seroprevalence of COVID-19, indicating that the current containment protocols emphasising mask wearing, hand washing, social distancing and mandatory quarantine for all incomers are effective in Taiwan.

FUNDING

Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

Development and Validation of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassay as a Highly Specific Tool for Determining Past Exposure to SARS-CoV-2

The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics) was developed to provide accurate, reliable detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated sensitivity, specificity, cross-reactivity, and agreement with a vesicular stomatitis virus-based pseudoneutralization assay for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Sensitivity and agreement between Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay and pseudoneutralization assay measurements were evaluated using samples from patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, a majority of whom were hospitalized. Specificity was evaluated using samples from routine diagnostic testing/blood donors collected before December 2019 and thus deemed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Cross-reactivity was evaluated using samples containing a wide range of potentially cross-reacting analytes, purchased from commercial vendors. For sensitivity and specificity, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Agreement between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay and the pseudoneutralization assay was calculated. The sensitivity of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay in patients with prior PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was 99.5% (95% CI, 97.0 to 100.0%) at ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation. Overall specificity (n = 10,453) was 99.80% (95% CI, 99.69 to 99.88%). Only 4/792 samples containing potential cross-reacting analytes were reactive with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay, resulting in an overall specificity in this cohort of 99.5% (95% CI, 98.6 to 99.9%). Positive, negative, and overall agreement (n = 46) between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay and the pseudoneutralization assay were 86.4% (95% CI, 73.3 to 93.6%), 100% (95% CI, 34.2 to 100%), and 87.0% (95% CI, 74.3 to 93.9%), respectively. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated high sensitivity (99.5% at ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation) and specificity (99.80%), supporting its use as a tool for identification of past SARS-CoV-2 infection, including use in populations with low disease prevalence.

Clinical evaluation of four commercial immunoassays for the detection of antibodies against established SARS-CoV-2 infection

A comparison of the clinical performance of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG, Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection was performed.

Patient sera were collected at least 6 weeks following onset of COVID-19 infection symptoms. Negative control specimens were stored specimens from those without COVID-19, collected in April–May 2019. Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Linear regression was used to examine the relationship between the magnitude of serological response and clinical characteristics.

There were 80 patients from whom 86 sera specimens were collected; six patients had duplicate specimens. There were 95 negative control specimens from 95 patients. The clinical sensitivity of the Elecsys assay was 98.84% (95% CI 93.69–99.97), specificity was 100% (95% CI 96.19–100.00); the Liaison assay clinical sensitivity was 96.51% (95% CI 90.14–99.27), specificity was 97.89% (95% CI 92.60–99.74); the Access assay clinical sensitivity was 84.88% (95% CI 75.54–91.70), specificity was 98.95% (95% CI 94.27–99.97); and the Vitros assay clinical sensitivity was 97.67% (95% CI 91.85–99.72), specificity was 100% (95% CI 96.15–100.00).

A requirement for hospitalisation for COVID-19 infection was associated with a larger Vitros, Liaison and Access IgG response whilst fever was associated with a larger Elecsys response.

All assays evaluated with the exception of the Access assay demonstrated similar performance. The Elecsys assay demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity.

Clinical performance of a semi-quantitative assay for SARS-CoV2 IgG and SARS-CoV2 IgM antibodies

•

We evaluated Ansh Labs SARS CoV-2 IgG and IgM ELISA’s as part of orthogonal testing.

•

The IgG and IgM ELISA assays showed acceptable performance.

•

Concordance with RT-PCR was 100% > 6 days after symptom onset.

Background

While the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is primarily based on detection of viral RNA, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is useful for assessing past prevalence of the disease, and in corroborating a current infection in challenging cases. Sensitive and specific immunoassays provide the ability to identify exposure to SARS-CoV-2, to determine seroconversion, to confirm eligibility for donation of convalescent plasma as well as play an essential part in epidemiological studies. We report on the validation of the Ansh Laboratories SARS-CoV-2 IgG and SARS-CoV-2 IgM ELISA immunoassays. These assays were evaluated for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies for clinical use in our hospital as part of an orthogonal testing algorithm recommended by the CDC.

Methods

Diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of the IgG and IgM ELISA assays were tested using samples confirmed to be negative or positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. We also evaluated precision, analytical interference, and cross-reactivity with known cases of infection with other viruses. Additionally, we validated concordance with molecular and other serological testing and evaluated seroconversion in our patient population.

Results

The IgG and IgM ELISA assays showed acceptable precision, were robust to analytical interference and did not exhibit cross reactivity with specimens positive for common respiratory viruses. Both assays exhibited 95% agreement with a primary screening serological assay utilized at our institution as well as with a reference laboratory semi-quantitative method. Concordance with RT-PCR was excellent > 6 days after symptom onset (100%).

Conclusions

The Ansh SARS-CoV-2 ELISA assays have good analytical performance suitable for clinical use.

Clinical Performance of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays

Background

The recent emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in a rapid proliferation of serologic assays. However, little is known about their clinical performance. Here, we compared two commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays.

Methods

103 specimens from 48 patients with PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 153 control specimens were analyzed using SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays by Abbott and EUROIMMUN (EI). Duration from symptom onset was determined by medical record review. Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and concordance were calculated.

Results

The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay had a diagnostic specificity of 99.4% (95% CI; 96.41-99.98%), and sensitivity of 0.0% (95% CI; 0.00-26.47%) at <3 days post symptom onset, 30.0% (95% CI; 11.89-54.28) at 3-7d, 47.8% (95% CI; 26.82-69.41) at 8-13d and 93.8% (95% CI; 82.80-98.69) at ≥14d. Diagnostic specificity on the EI assay was 94.8% (95% CI; 89.96-97.72) if borderline results were considered positive and 96.7% (95% CI; 92.54-98.93) if borderline results were considered negative. The diagnostic sensitivity was 0.0% (95% CI; 0.00-26.47%) at <3d, 25.0% (95% CI; 8.66-49.10) at 3-7d, 56.5% (95% CI; 34.49-76.81) at 3-7d and 85.4% (95% CI; 72.24-93.93) at ≥14d if borderline results were considered positive. The qualitative concordance between the assays was 0.83 (95% CI; 0.75-0.91).

Conclusions

The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 assay had fewer false positive and false negative results than the EI assay. However, diagnostic sensitivity was poor in both assays during the first 14 days of symptoms.

Molecular Diagnosis of COVID-19: Challenges and Research Needs

Molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 primarily relies on the detection of RNA of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the causative infectious agent of the pandemic. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) enables sensitive detection of specific sequences of genes that encode the RNA dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP), nucleocapsid (N), envelope (E), and spike (S) proteins of the virus. Although RT-PCR tests have been widely used and many alternative assays have been developed, the current testing capacity and availability cannot meet the unprecedented global demands for rapid, reliable, and widely accessible molecular diagnosis. Challenges remain throughout the entire analytical process, from the collection and treatment of specimens to the amplification and detection of viral RNA and the validation of clinical sensitivity and specificity. We highlight the main issues surrounding molecular diagnosis of COVID-19, including false negatives from the detection of viral RNA, temporal variations of viral loads, selection and treatment of specimens, and limiting factors in detecting viral proteins. We discuss critical research needs, such as improvements in RT-PCR, development of alternative nucleic acid amplification techniques, incorporating CRISPR technology for point-of-care (POC) applications, validation of POC tests, and sequencing of viral RNA and its mutations. Improved assays are also needed for environmental surveillance or wastewater-based epidemiology, which gauges infection on the community level through analyses of viral components in the community's wastewater. Public health surveillance benefits from large-scale analyses of antibodies in serum, although the current serological tests do not quantify neutralizing antibodies. Further advances in analytical technology and research through multidisciplinary collaboration will contribute to the development of mitigation strategies, therapeutics, and vaccines. Lessons learned from molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 are valuable for better preparedness in response to other infectious diseases.

Evaluation of three fully-automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays

Objectives Serological assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are increasingly used during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-Coronavirus-2. Here we evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Methods A total of 186 samples from 58 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection were measured using SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics and Euroimmun. Additionally, 123 control samples, including samples collected before December 2019 and samples with potential cross-reactive antibodies were analyzed. Diagnostic specificity, sensitivity, agreement between assays and ROC curve-derived optimized thresholds were determined. Furthermore, intra- and inter-assay precision and the potential impact of interfering substances were investigated. Results SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Siemens and Roche showed 100% specificity. The Euroimmun assay had 98 and 100% specificity, when borderline results are considered as positive or negative, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity for samples collected ≥14 days after PCR-positivity was 97.0, 89.4 and 95.5% using the Siemens, Roche and Euroimmun assay, respectively. Sensitivity of the Roche assay can be increased using an optimized cut-off index (0.095). However, a simultaneous decrease in specificity (98.4%) was observed. Siemens showed 95.8 and 95.5% overall agreement with results of Euroimmun and Roche assay, respectively. Euroimmun and Roche assay exhibited 92.6% overall agreement. Discordant results were observed in three COVID-19 patients and in one COVID-19 patient none of the investigated assays detected antibodies. Conclusions The investigated assays were highly specific and sensitive in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in samples obtained ≥14 days after PCR-confirmed infection. Discordant results need to be investigated in further studies.

Retrospective clinical evaluation of 4 lateral flow assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG

In a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments laboratory setting, we evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG detection with 4 lateral flow immunoassays [LFIAs; 2 iterations from BTNX Inc. (n = 457) and 1 each from ACON Laboratories (n = 200) and SD BIOSENSOR (n = 155)]. In a cohort of primarily hospitalized, reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 cases, sensitivity at ≥14 days from symptom onset was: BTNX kit 1, 95%; BTNX kit 2, 91%; ACON, 95%; and SD, 92%. All assays showed good concordance with the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay at ≥14 days from symptom onset: BTNX kit 1, 99%; BTNX kit 2, 94%; ACON, 99%; and SD, 100%. Specificity, measured using specimens collected prior to SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the United States and "cross-reactivity challenge" specimens, was 98% for BTNX kit 1 and ACON and 100% for BTNX kit 2 and SD. These results suggest that LFIAs may provide adequate results for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Diagnostic efficacy of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM test for COVID-19: A meta-analysis

The serological testing of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and/or IgM is widely used in the diagnosis of COVID‐19. However, its diagnostic efficacy remains unclear. In this study, we searched for diagnostic studies from the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to calculate the pooled diagnostic accuracy measures using bivariate random‐effects model meta‐analysis. As a result, 22 from a total of 1613 articles, including 2282 patients with SARS‐CoV‐2 and 1485 healthy persons or patients without SARS‐CoV‐2, were selected for a meta‐analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve of the summary receiver operator curve (SROC) were: (a) 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79‐0.90), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98‐1.00), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐0.99) for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and (b) 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65‐0.81), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97‐1.00), and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93‐0.97) for IgM. A subgroup analysis among detection methods indicated the sensitivity of IgG and IgM using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay were slightly lower than those using gold immunochromatography assay (GICA) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (P > .05). These results showed that the detection of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM had high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. And, GICA might be used as the preferred method for its accuracy and simplicity.

Detection of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG and IgM has high diagnostic efficiency to assist the diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2.

Molecular, serological, and biochemical diagnosis and monitoring of COVID-19: IFCC taskforce evaluation of the latest evidence

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented major challenges for clinical laboratories, from initial diagnosis to patient monitoring and treatment. Initial response to this pandemic involved the development, production, and distribution of diagnostic molecular assays at an unprecedented rate, leading to minimal validation requirements and concerns regarding their diagnostic accuracy in clinical settings. In addition to molecular testing, serological assays to detect antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are now becoming available from numerous diagnostic manufacturers. In both cases, the lack of peer-reviewed data and regulatory oversight, combined with general misconceptions regarding their appropriate use, have highlighted the importance of laboratory professionals in robustly validating and evaluating these assays for appropriate clinical use. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on COVID-19 has been established to synthesize up-to-date information on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and laboratory diagnosis and monitoring of COVID-19, as well as to develop practical recommendations on the use of molecular, serological, and biochemical tests in disease diagnosis and management. This review summarizes the latest evidence and status of molecular, serological, and biochemical testing in COVID-19 and highlights some key considerations for clinical laboratories operating to support the global fight against this ongoing pandemic. Confidently this consolidated information provides a useful resource to laboratories and a reminder of the laboratory's critical role as the world battles this unprecedented crisis.

Prevalence of Sars-Cov-2 Infection in Health Workers (HWs) and Diagnostic Test Performance: The Experience of a Teaching Hospital in Central Italy

(1) Background: Health workers (HWs) are at high risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) infections. Therefore, health authorities further recommend screening strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection in exposed or high-risk HWs. Nevertheless, to date, the best/optimal method to screen HWs for SARS-CoV-2 infection is still under debate, and data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HWs are still scarce. The present study aims to assess the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate amongst HWs in a teaching hospital in Central Italy and the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology (index test) in comparison with the SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR assay (reference standard). (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study on the retrospective data of HWs tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RNA-RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs and by an IgM/IgG serology assay on venous blood samples, irrespective of exposure and/or symptoms, was carried out. (3) Results: A total of 2057 HWs (median age 46, 19-69 years, females 60.2%) were assessed by the RNA RT-PCR assay and 58 (2.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared with negative HWs, SARS-CoV-2-positives were younger (mean age 41.7 versus 45.2, p < 0.01; 50% versus 31% under or equal to 40 years old, p < 0.002) and had a shorter duration of employment (64 versus 125 months, p = 0.02). Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was more frequent in positive HWs than in negatives (55.2% versus 27.5%, p < 0.0001). In 44.8% of positive HWs, no exposure was traced. None of the positive HWs had a fatal outcome, none of them had acute respiratory distress syndrome, and only one required hospitalization for mild/moderate pneumonia. In 1084 (51.2%) HWs, nasopharyngeal swabs and an IgM/IgG serology assay were performed. With regard to IgM serology, sensitivity was 0% at a specificity of 98.99% (positive predictive value, PPV 0%, negative predictive value, NPV 99.2%). Concerning IgG serology and irrespective of the time interval between nasopharyngeal swab and serology, sensitivity was 50% at a specificity of 99.1% (PPV 28.6%, NPV 99.6%). IgG serology showed a higher diagnostic performance when performed at least two weeks after testing SARS-CoV-2-positive at the RNA RT-PCR assay by a nasopharyngeal swab. (4) Conclusions: Our experience in Central Italy demonstrated a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HWs, but higher than in the general population. Nearly half of the positive HWs reported no previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects and were diagnosed thanks to the proactive screening strategy implemented. IgG serology seems useful when performed at least two weeks after an RNA RT-PCR assay. IgM serology does not seem to be a useful test for the diagnosis of active SARS-CoV-2 infection. High awareness of SARS-CoV-2 infection is mandatory for all people, but especially for HWs, irrespective of symptoms, to safeguard their health and that of patients.

Clinical evaluation of serological IgG antibody response on the Abbott Architect for established SARS-CoV-2 infection

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Residual sera from 177 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and 163 non-COVID-19 patients were tested for antibody with the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Chicago, USA). Clinical records for COVID-19 patients were reviewed to determine the time from onset of clinical illness to testing.

RESULTS

Specificity of the assay was 100.0% (95%CI: 97.1-100.0%). The clinical sensitivity of the assay varied depending on time from onset of symptoms, increasing with longer periods from the onset of clinical illness. The clinical sensitivity at ≤6 days was 8.6% (7/81; 95%CI: 3.8-17.5%), at 7-13 days 43.6% (17/39; 95%CI: 28.2-60.2%), at 14-20 days 84.0% (21/25; 95%CI: 63.1-94.7%), and at ≥21 days 84.4% (27/32; 95%CI: 66.5-94.1%). Clinical sensitivity was higher in the ≥14-day group compared to <14 days. There were no differences between the 14-20-day and ≥21-days groups; the combined clinical sensitivity for these groups (≥14 days) was 84.2% (49/57; 71.6-92.1%).

CONCLUSION

The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG test has high specificity. Clinical sensitivity was limited in the early stages of disease but improved from 14 days after the onset of clinical symptoms.