Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of 10 serological assays for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Recent Advances in Quantum Dot-Based Lateral Flow Immunoassays for the Rapid, Point-of-Care Diagnosis of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred demand for efficient and rapid diagnostic tools that can be deployed at point of care to quickly identify infected individuals. Existing detection methods are time consuming and they lack sensitivity. Point-of-care testing (POCT) has emerged as a promising alternative due to its user-friendliness, rapidity, and high specificity and sensitivity. Such tests can be conveniently conducted at the patient's bedside. Immunodiagnostic methods that offer the rapid identification of positive cases are urgently required. Quantum dots (QDs), known for their multimodal properties, have shown potential in terms of combating or inhibiting the COVID-19 virus. When coupled with specific antibodies, QDs enable the highly sensitive detection of viral antigens in patient samples. Conventional lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) have been widely used for diagnostic testing due to their simplicity, low cost, and portability. However, they often lack the sensitivity required to accurately detect low viral loads. Quantum dot (QD)-based lateral flow immunoassays have emerged as a promising alternative, offering significant advancements in sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) method, which fulfils POCT standards, has gained popularity in diagnosing COVID-19. This review focuses on recent advancements in QD-based LFIA for rapid POCT COVID-19 diagnosis. Strategies to enhance sensitivity using QDs are explored, and the underlying principles of LFIA are elucidated. The benefits of using the QD-based LFIA as a POCT method are highlighted, and its published performance in COVID-19 diagnostics is examined. Overall, the integration of quantum dots with LFIA holds immense promise in terms of revolutionizing COVID-19 detection, treatment, and prevention, offering a convenient and effective approach to combat the pandemic.

Validation of N Protein Antibodies to Diagnose Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Healthcare Workers: Use of Roche Elecsys® Immunoassay in the S Protein Vaccination Era

The aim of this study was to validate the detection of anti-nucleocapsid protein (N protein) antibodies for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in light of the fact that most COVID-19 vaccines use the spike (S) protein as the antigen. Here, 3550 healthcare workers (HCWs) were enrolled from May 2020 (when no S protein vaccines were available). We defined SARS-CoV-2 infection if HCWs were found to be positive by RT-PCR or found to be positive in at least two different serological immunoassays. Serum samples from Biobanc I3PT-CERCA were analyzed by Roche Elecsys^® (N protein) and Vircell IgG (N and S proteins) immunoassays. Discordant samples were reanalyzed with other commercial immunoassays. Roche Elecsys^® showed the positivity of 539 (15.2%) HCWs, 664 (18.7%) were found to be positive by Vircell IgG immunoassays, and 164 samples (4.6%) showed discrepant results. According to our SARS-CoV-2 infection criteria, 563 HCWs had SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Roche Elecsys^® immunoassay has a sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and concordance with the presence of infection of 94.7%, 99.8%, 99.3%, and 0.96, respectively. Similar results were observed in a validation cohort of vaccinated HCWs. We conclude that the Roche Elecsys^® SARS-CoV-2 N protein immunoassay demonstrated good performance in diagnosing previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of HCWs.

Rapid Detection of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies with a Screen-Printed Electrode Modified with a Spike Glycoprotein Epitope

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by an infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It was recognized in late 2019 and has since spread worldwide, leading to a pandemic with unprecedented health and financial consequences. There remains an enormous demand for new diagnostic methods that can deliver fast, low-cost, and easy-to-use confirmation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We have developed an affordable electrochemical biosensor for the rapid detection of serological immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody in sera against the spike protein.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A previously identified linear B-cell epitope (EP) specific to the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and recognized by IgG in patient sera was selected for the target molecule. After synthesis, the EP was immobilized onto the surface of the working electrode of a commercially available screen-printed electrode (SPE). The capture of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgGs allowed the formation of an immunocomplex that was measured by square-wave voltammetry from its generation of hydroquinone (HQ).

RESULTS

An evaluation of the performance of the EP-based biosensor presented a selectivity and specificity for COVID-19 of 93% and 100%, respectively. No cross-reaction was observed to antibodies against other diseases that included Chagas disease, Chikungunya, Leishmaniosis, and Dengue. Differentiation of infected and non-infected individuals was possible even at a high dilution factor that decreased the required sample volumes to a few microliters.

CONCLUSION

The final device proved suitable for diagnosing COVID-19 by assaying actual serum samples, and the results displayed good agreement with the molecular biology diagnoses. The flexibility to conjugate other EPs to SPEs suggests that this technology could be rapidly adapted to diagnose new variants of SARS-CoV-2 or other pathogens.

The role and diagnostic accuracy of serology for COVID-19

Background

The role and performance of various serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 are unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of seven commercially available serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by testing COVID-19 cases and controls.

Methods

Adult patients with fever for > 5 days, admitted to a tertiary-care teaching hospital in South India, were enrolled prospectively between June and December 2020. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR confirmed patients were classified as cases, and patients with febrile illness with laboratory-confirmed alternative diagnosis and healthy participants were controls. All participants were tested with SCoV-2 Detect™ IgM ELISA kit and SCoV-2 Detect™ IgG ELISA kit (InBios International, Seattle, USA) (Inbios), SARS-CoV-2 Total and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., Tarrytown, USA) (Siemens), Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (Roche), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott Diagnostics, IL, USA) (Abbott), and Liaison® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorinS.p.A., Saluggia, Italy) (Liaison). The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracies were compared.

Results

There were 303 participants: 153 cases and 150 controls. ELISA detecting anti-S protein antibody was more sensitive (88.9% for IgG and 86.3% for IgM) than the CLIAs (82.4% for total antibodies and 76.5–85.6% for IgG). Among CLIAs, Roche IgG was most sensitive (85.6%) followed by Abbott (83%) and Liaison (83%). Abbot had the best PPV (88.8%) and was more specific (89.3%) than Liaison (82%) and Roche (82%). Siemens IgG was less sensitive (76.5%) than Siemens Total (82.4%). The specificity of all the serological assays was modest (75–90%). Antibody test positivity increased with the duration of illness reaching 90% after 10 days of illness. When cases were compared against pre-pandemic controls, the IgG gave excellent specificity (98–100%). For seroprevalence studies, InBios IgG had the best accuracy (90.8%) with 88.9% sensitivity and 97.6% specificity.

Conclusion

The serological assays are important adjuncts for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients with persistent symptoms, especially in the second week of illness. The value of serological diagnostic tests is limited in the first week of illness and they provide additional value in seroprevalence studies. The diagnostic accuracy of the ELISA and CLIA platforms were comparable.

The endogenous factors affecting the detection of serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM antibodies by ELISA

To investigate endogenous interference factors of the detection results of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgM/IgG. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG in sera of 200 patients without COVID-19 infection, including rheumatoid factor (RF) positive group, antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive group, pregnant women group and normal senior group, with 50 in each group and 100 normal controls. The level of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in pregnant women was significantly higher than that in normal control group (P = 0.000), but there was no significant difference between other groups. The levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgM in pregnant women group, normal senior group, ANA positive group and RF positive group were significantly higher than that in normal control group (P<0.05), with significant higher false positive rates in these groups (P = 0.036, P = 0.004, P = 0.000, vs normal control group). Serum RF caused SARS-CoV-2 IgM false-positive in concentration dependent manner, especially when its concentration was higher than 110.25 IU/L, and urea dissociation test can turn the false positive to negative. ANA, normal seniors, pregnant women and RF can lead to false-positive reactivity of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and/or IgG detected using ELISA. These factors should be considered when SARS-CoV-2 IgM or IgG detection is positive, false positive samples caused by RF positive can be used for urea dissociation test. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Importance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay antigenic composition as revealed by the results of the Belgian external quality assessment (EQA) scheme

We report on sample IS/17575 since it generated highly divergent results in the Belgian SARS-CoV-2 serology external quality assessment scheme. Sample IS/17575 was serum originating from a 30 years old male patient. 124 diagnostic laboratories analysed this sample. A total of 168 results was returned (including 5 doubles). Overall, 38 were positive. All tests against S1 were positive except the Euroimmun IgG ELISA and the Ortho clinical Diagnostics VITROS IgG CLIA. All tests against S1/S2 (Liaison, Diasorin) resulted in a signal above cutoff. Assays against RBD, mostly generate a negative result. An exception are the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 ELISA's. All tests targeting N protein were negative. The survey shows, when >6 months post-infection, assays targeting at least S1, and preferably S1 combined with S2, are the most sensitive. This finding accentuates the necessity of external quality assessment schedules and importance of antigenic composition of serologic SARS-CoV-2 assays.

Agreement between commercially available ELISA and in-house Luminex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays

Serological diagnostic of the severe respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a valuable tool for the determination of immunity and surveillance of exposure to the virus. In the context of an ongoing pandemic, it is essential to externally validate widely used tests to assure correct diagnostics and epidemiological estimations. We evaluated the performance of the COVID-19 ELISA IgG and the COVID-19 ELISA IgM/A (Vircell, S.L.) against a highly specific and sensitive in-house Luminex immunoassay in a set of samples from pregnant women and cord blood. The agreement between both assays was moderate to high for IgG but low for IgM/A. Considering seropositivity by either IgG and/or IgM/A, the technical performance of the ELISA was highly imbalanced, with 96% sensitivity at the expense of 22% specificity. As for the clinical performance, the negative predictive value reached 87% while the positive predictive value was 51%. Our results stress the need for highly specific and sensitive assays and external validation of diagnostic tests with different sets of samples to avoid the clinical, epidemiological and personal disturbances derived from serological misdiagnosis.

Evaluation of 32 rapid tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

AIMS

To evaluate the analytical performance of 32 rapid tests for detection of antibodies against coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used at total of 262 serum samples (197 pre-pandemic and 65 convalescent COVID-19), and three criteria to evaluate the rapid tests under standardized and optimal conditions: (i) Immunoglobulin G (IgG) specificity "good" if lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was ≥ 97.0%, "acceptable" if point estimate was ≥ 97.0%, otherwise "not acceptable". (ii) IgG sensitivity "good" if point estimate was ≥ 90.0%, "acceptable" if ≥ 85.0%, otherwise "not acceptable". (iii) User-friendliness "not acceptable" if complicated to perform or difficult to read result, otherwise "good". We also included partial evaluations of three automated immunoassay systems.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity varied considerably; IgG specificity between 90.9% (85.9-94.2) and 100% (97.7-100.0), and IgG sensitivity between 53.8% (41.9-65.4) and 98.5% (91.0-100.0). Combining our evaluation criteria, none of the 28 rapid tests that detected IgG had an overall performance considered "good", seven tests were considered "acceptable", while 21 tests were considered "not acceptable". Four tests detected only total antibodies and were not given an overall evaluation. IgG sensitivity and/or specificity of the automated immunoassays did not exceed that of many rapid tests.

CONCLUSION

When prevalence is low, the most important analytical property is a test's IgG specificity, which must be high to minimize false positive results. Out of 32 rapid tests, none had a performance classified as "good", but seven were classified as "acceptable".

Evaluation of Three Commercial and Two Non-Commercial Immunoassays for the Detection of Prior Infection to SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

Serological testing provides a record of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, but assay performance requires independent assessment.

METHODS

We evaluated 3 commercial (Roche Diagnostics pan-IG, and Epitope Diagnostics IgM and IgG) and 2 non-commercial (Simoa and Ragon/MGH IgG) immunoassays against 1083 unique samples that included 251 PCR-positive and 832 prepandemic samples.

RESULTS

The Roche assay registered the highest specificity 99.6% (3/832 false positives), the Ragon/MGH assay 99.5% (4/832), the primary Simoa assay model 99.0% (8/832), and the Epitope IgG and IgM 99.0% (8/830) and 99.5% (4/830), respectively. Overall sensitivities for the Simoa, Roche pan-IG, Epitope IgG, Ragon/MGH IgG, and Epitope IgM were 92.0%, 82.9%, 82.5%, 64.5% and 47.0%, respectively. The Simoa immunoassay demonstrated the highest sensitivity among samples stratified by days postsymptom onset (PSO), <8 days PSO (57.69%) 8-14 days PSO (93.51%), 15-21 days PSO (100%), and > 21 days PSO (95.18%).

CONCLUSIONS

All assays demonstrated high to very high specificities while sensitivities were variable across assays.

Evaluation of serological lateral flow assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Lateral flow assays can detect anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies to monitor transmission. However, standardized evaluation of their accuracy and tools to aid in interpreting results are needed.

METHODS

We evaluated 20 IgG and IgM assays selected from available tests in April 2020. We evaluated the assays' performance using 56 pre-pandemic negative and 56 SARS-CoV-2-positive plasma samples, collected 10-40 days after symptom onset, confirmed by a molecular test and analyzed by an ultra-sensitive immunoassay. Finally, we developed a user-friendly web app to extrapolate the positive predictive values based on their accuracy and local prevalence.

RESULTS

Combined IgG + IgM sensitivities ranged from 33.9 to 94.6%, while combined specificities ranged from 92.6 to 100%. The highest sensitivities were detected in Lumiquick for IgG (98.2%), BioHit for both IgM (96.4%), and combined IgG + IgM sensitivity (94.6%). Furthermore, 11 LFAs and 8 LFAs showed perfect specificity for IgG and IgM, respectively, with 15 LFAs showing perfect combined IgG + IgM specificity. Lumiquick had the lowest estimated limit-of-detection (LOD) (0.1 μg/mL), followed by a similar LOD of 1.5 μg/mL for CareHealth, Cellex, KHB, and Vivachek.

CONCLUSION

We provide a public resource of the accuracy of select lateral flow assays with potential for home testing. The cost-effectiveness, scalable manufacturing process, and suitability for self-testing makes LFAs an attractive option for monitoring disease prevalence and assessing vaccine responsiveness. Our web tool provides an easy-to-use interface to demonstrate the impact of prevalence and test accuracy on the positive predictive values.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the poorest region of Brazil: results from a population-based study

Population-based seroprevalence studies on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in low- and middle-income countries are lacking. We investigated the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in Sergipe state, Northeast Brazil, using rapid IgM−IgG antibody test and fluorescence immunoassay. The seroprevalence was 9.3% (95% CI 8.5–10.1), 10.2% (95% CI 9.2–11.3) for women and 7.9% (IC 95% 6.8–9.1) for men (P = 0.004). We found a decline in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies according to age, but the differences were not statistically significant: 0–19 years (9.9%; 95% CI 7.8–12.5), 20–59 years (9.3%; 95% CI 8.4–10.3) and ≥60 years (9.0%; 95% CI 7.5–10.8) (P = 0.517). The metropolitan area had a higher seroprevalence (11.7%, 95% CI 10.3–13.2) than outside municipalities (8.0%, 95% CI 7.2–8.9) (P < 0.001). These findings highlight the importance of serosurveillance to estimate the real impact of the COVID-19 outbreak and thereby provide data to better understand the spread of the virus, as well as providing information to guide stay-at-home measures and other policies. In addition, these results may be useful as basic data to follow the progress of COVID-19 outbreak as social restriction initiatives start to be relaxed in Brazil.

SERS Based Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Point-of-Care Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Samples

The current scenario, an ongoing pandemic of COVID-19, places a dreadful burden on the healthcare system worldwide. Subsequently, there is a need for a rapid, user-friendly, and inexpensive on-site monitoring system for diagnosis. The early and rapid diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 plays an important role in combating the outbreak. Although conventional methods such as PCR, RT-PCR, and ELISA, etc., offer a gold-standard solution to manage the pandemic, they cannot be implemented as a point-of-care (POC) testing arrangement. Moreover, surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS) having a high enhancement factor provides quantitative results with high specificity, sensitivity, and multiplex detection ability but lacks in POC setup. In contrast, POC devices such as lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) offer rapid, simple-to-use, cost-effective, reliable platform. However, LFIA has limitations in quantitative and sensitive analyses of SARS-CoV-2 detection. To resolve these concerns, herein we discuss a unique modality that is an integration of SERS with LFIA for quantitative analyses of SARS-CoV-2. The miniaturization ability of SERS-based devices makes them promising in biosensor application and has the potential to make a better alternative of conventional diagnostic methods. This review also demonstrates the commercially available and FDA/ICMR approved LFIA kits for on-site diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.