Differences of SARS-CoV-2 serological test performance between hospitalized and outpatient COVID-19 cases

Evaluation of ten (10) SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests in comparison with WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 ab ELISA in Burkina Faso, West Africa

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of ten (10) SARS-CoV-2 serological rapid diagnostic tests in comparison with the WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test in a laboratory setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten (10) SARS-CoV-2 serological rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM were evaluated with two (2) groups of plasma tested positive for one and negative for the other with the WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA. The diagnostic performance of the SARS-CoV-2 serological RDTs and their agreement with the reference test were calculated with their 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of serological RDTs ranged from 27.39 to 61.67% and the specificity from 93.33 to 100% compared to WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test. Of all the tests, two tests (STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo SD BIOSENSOR and COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test (Zhejiang Orient Gene Biotech Co., Ltd)) had a sensitivity greater than 50%. In addition, all ten tests had specificity greater than or equal to 93.33% each. The concordance between RDTs and WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test ranged from 0.25 to 0.61.

CONCLUSION

The SARS-CoV-2 serological RDTs evaluated show low and variable sensitivities compared to the WANTAI SARS-CoV-2 Ab ELISA test, with however a good specificity. These finding may have implications for the interpretation and comparison of COVID-19 seroprevalence studies depending on the type of test used.

Sensitive and specific serological ELISA for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections

Background

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has triggered the worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections are important to understand the immune response in patients and to obtain epidemiological data about the number of infected people, especially to identify asymptomatic persons not aware of a past infection.

Methods

We recombinantly produced SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-protein in Escherichia coli. We used the purified protein to develop an indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies. This ELISA method was optimized and validated with serum samples collected from 113 patients with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections including hospitalized COVID-19 patients and 1500 control sera mostly collected before 2015 with different clinical background.

Results

The optimized N-protein-ELISA provided a sensitivity of 89.7% (n = 68) for samples collected from patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and mild to severe symptoms more than 14 days after symptom onset or a positive PCR test. The antibody levels remained low for serum samples collected in the first six days (n = 23) and increased in the second week (n = 22) post symptom onset or PCR confirmation. At this early phase, the ELISA provided a sensitivity of 39.1% and 86.4%, respectively, reflecting the time of an IgG immune response against pathogens. The assay specificity was 99.3% (n = 1500; 95% CI 0.995–0.999). Serum samples from persons with confirmed antibody titers against human immunodeficiency viruses 1/2, parvovirus B19, hepatitis A/B virus, cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr virus, and herpes simplex virus were tested negative.

Conclusions

We conclude that the N-protein-based ELISA developed here is well suited for the sensitive and specific serological detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific IgG antibodies in human serum for symptomatic infections. It may also prove useful to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated people, as all currently approved vaccines rely on the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-) protein.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12985-022-01768-4.

Correlation of humoral immune responses to different SARS-CoV-2 antigens with virus neutralizing antibodies and symptomatic severity in a German COVID-19 cohort

Monitoring the humoral protective immune response and its durability after SARS-CoV-2 infections is essential for risk assessment of reinfections, the improvement of diagnostic methods and the evaluation of vaccine trials. We have analyzed neutralizing antibodies and IgG responses specific to different antigens, including the inactivated whole-virion of SARS-CoV-2, the spike subunit 1 protein and its receptor binding domain, as well as the nucleocapsid protein. We show the dynamic developments of the responses from the early convalescent stages up to 9 months post symptoms onset in follow-up samples from 57 COVID-19 patients with varying clinical severity. By correlating antibody signals to neutralizing titres, valid diagnostic markers for the estimation of neutralizing protection could be identified.

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.

Adoption of improved neural network blade pattern recognition in prevention and control of corona virus disease-19 pandemic

To explore the adoption effect of improved neural network blade pattern in corona virus disease (COVID)-19, comparative analysis is implemented. First, the following hypotheses are proposed. I: in addition to the confirmed cases and deaths, people suspected of being infected are also involved in the spread of the epidemic. II: patients who have been cured may also develop secondary infections, so it is considered that there is still a link between cured cases and the spread of the epidemic. III: only the relevant data of the previous day is used to predict the epidemic prevention and control of the next day. Then, the epidemic data from February 1st to February 15th in X province were selected as the control. The combined neural network model is used for prevention and control prediction, and the prediction results of the traditional neural network model are compared. The results show that the predictions of the daily new cases by the five neural network models have little difference with the actual value, and the trend is basically consistent. However, there are still differences in some time nodes. The errors of neural network 1 on the 6th and network 3 on the 13th are large. The accuracy of the combined neural network prediction model is high, and there is little difference between the result and the actual value at each time node. The prediction of the cumulative number of diagnoses per day of the five neural network models is also analyzed, and the results are relatively ideal. In addition, the accuracy of the combined neural network prediction model is high, and the difference between the result and the actual value at each time node is relatively small. It is found that the standard deviations of neural networks 2 and 3 are relatively high through the comparison of the deviations. The deviation means of the five models were all relatively low, and the mean deviation and standard deviation of the combined neural network model are the lowest. It is found that the accuracy of prediction on the epidemic spread in this province is good by comparing the performance of each neural network model. Regarding various indicators, the prediction accuracy of the combined neural network model is higher than that of the other four models, and its performance is also the best. Finally, the MSE of the improved neural network model is lower compared with the traditional neural network model. Moreover, with the change of learning times, the change trend of MSE is constant (P < 0.05 for all). In short, the improved neural network blade model has better performance compared with that of the traditional neural network blade model. The prediction results of the epidemic situation are accurate, and the application effect is remarkable, so the proposed model is worthy of further promotion and application in the medical field.

Assessment of avidity related to IgG subclasses in SARS-CoV-2 Brazilian infected patients

SARS-CoV-2 is considered a global emergency, resulting in an exacerbated crisis in the health public in the world. Although there are advances in vaccine development, it is still limited for many countries. On the other hand, an immunological response that mediates protective immunity or indicates that predict disease outcome in SARS-CoV-2 infection remains undefined. This work aimed to assess the antibody levels, avidity, and subclasses of IgG to RBD protein, in symptomatic patients with severe and mild forms of COVID-19 in Brazil using an adapted in-house RBD-IgG ELISA. The RBD IgG-ELISA showed 100% of specificity and 94.3% of sensibility on detecting antibodies in the sera of hospitalized patients. Patients who presented severe COVID-19 had higher anti-RBD IgG levels compared to patients with mild disease. Additionally, most patients analyzed displayed low antibody avidity, with 64.4% of the samples of patients who recovered from the disease and 84.6% of those who died in this avidity range. Our data also reveals an increase of IgG1 and IgG3 levels since the 8th day after symptoms onset, while IgG4 levels maintained less detectable during the study period. Surprisingly, patients who died during 8-14 and 15-21 days also showed higher anti-RBD IgG4 levels in comparison with the recovered (P < 0.05), suggesting that some life-threatening patients can elicit IgG4 to RBD antibody response in the first weeks of symptoms onset. Our findings constitute the effort to clarify IgG antibodies' kinetics, avidity, and subclasses against SARS-CoV-2 RBD in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 in Brazil, highlighting the importance of IgG antibody avidity in association with IgG4 detection as tool laboratory in the follow-up of hospitalized patients with more significant potential for life-threatening.

Evaluation and Comparison of Serological Methods for COVID-19 Diagnosis

The worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 has become a global public health crisis. Various clinical diagnosis methods have been developed to distinguish COVID-19-infected patients from healthy people. The nucleic acid test is the golden standard for virus detection as it is suitable for early diagnosis. However, due to the low amount of viral nucleic acid in the respiratory tract, the sensitivity of nucleic acid detection is unsatisfactory. As a result, serological screening began to be widely used with the merits of simple procedures, lower cost, and shorter detection time. Serological tests currently include the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). This review describes various serological methods, discusses the performance and diagnostic effects of different methods, and points out the problems and the direction of optimization, to improve the efficiency of clinical diagnosis. These increasingly sophisticated and diverse serological diagnostic technologies will help human beings to control the spread of COVID-19.

Evaluation of a New Spike (S)-Protein-Based Commercial Immunoassay for the Detection of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG

Background: The investigation of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 represents a key aspect in facing the COVID-19 pandemic. In the present study, we compared the new Immundiagnostik IDK® anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG assay with four widely-used commercial serological assays for the detection of antibodies targeting S (spike) and NC (nucleocapsid) proteins. Methods: Serum samples were taken from an unbiased group of convalescent patients and from a negative control group. Sample were simultaneously analyzed by the new Immundiagnostik IDK® anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG assay, by the DiaSorin LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay, and by the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG ELISA. Antibodies binding NC were detected by the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and by the pan-immunoglobulin immunoassay Roche Elecsys® anti-SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, we investigated samples of a group of COVID-19 convalescent subjects that were primarily tested S1 IgG non-reactive. Samples were also tested by live virus and pseudovirus neutralization tests. Results: Overall, the IDK® anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG assay showed the highest sensitivity among the evaluated spike (S) protein-based assays. Additionally, the Immundiagnostik assay correlated well with serum-neutralizing activity. Conclusions: The novel IDK® anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG assay showed high sensitivity and specificity, representing a valid option for use in the routine diagnostic.

Accurate point-of-care serology tests for COVID-19

Background

As COVID-19 vaccines become available, screening individuals for prior COVID-19 infection and vaccine response in point-of-care (POC) settings has renewed interest. We prospectively screened at-risk individuals for SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid protein antibodies in a POC setting to determine if it was a feasible method to identify antibody from prior infection.

Methods

Three EUA-approved lateral flow antibody assays were performed on POC finger-stick blood and compared with serum and a CLIA nucleocapsid antibody immunoassay. Variables including antibody class, time since PCR, and the assay antigen used were evaluated.

Results

512 subjects enrolled, of which 104 had a COVID-19 history and positive PCR. Only three PCR-positive subjects required hospitalization, with one requiring mechanical ventilation. The POC results correlated well with the immunoassay (93–97% sensitivity) and using serum did not improve the sensitivity or specificity.

Conclusions

Finger-stick, POC COVID-19 antibody testing was highly effective in identifying antibody resulting from prior infections in mildly symptomatic subjects. Using high-complexity serum immunoassays did not improve the screening outcome. Almost all individuals with COVID-19 infection produced detectable antibodies to the virus. POC antibody testing is useful as a screen for prior COVID-19 infection, and should be useful in assessing vaccine response.

Comparative Assessment of Sera from Individuals after S-Gene RNA-Based SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination with Spike-Protein-Based and Nucleocapsid-Based Serological Assays

Due to the beginning of vaccination against COVID-19, serological discrimination between vaccine-associated humoral response and serology-based surveillance of natural SARS-CoV-2 infections as well as breakthrough infections becomes an issue of relevance. Here, we assessed the differentiated effects of the application of an RNA vaccine using SARS-CoV-2 spike protein epitopes on the results of both anti-spike protein–based serology (EUROIMMUN) and anti-nucleocapsid-based serology (VIROTECH). A total of 80 serum samples from vaccinees acquired at different time points after vaccination was assessed. While positive or borderline serological response in the anti-spike protein assay was observed for all samples (90% both IgG and IgA, 6.3% IgA only, 3.8% borderline IgG only), only a single case of a falsely positive IgM was observed for the anti-nucleocapsid assay as expected due to this assay’s specificity. Positive anti-spike protein antibodies were already detectable in the second week after the first dose of vaccination, with higher titers after the second dose of the vaccine. In conclusion, the combined application of anti-spike protein–based serology and anti-nucleocapsid-based serology will provide a useful option for the discrimination of vaccination response and natural infection.

Multicenter evaluation of four immunoassays for the performance of early diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody responses of patients with pneumonia in Taiwan

Background/purpose

Our study goals were to evaluate the diagnostic performance of four anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies tests and the differences in dynamic immune responses between COVID-19 patients with and without pneumonia.

Methods

We collected 184 serum samples from 70 consecutively qRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients at four participating hospitals from 23 January 2020 to 30 September 2020. COVID-19 pneumonia was defined as the presence of new pulmonary infiltration. Serum samples were grouped by the duration after symptom onset on a weekly basis for antibody testing and analysis. The four immunoassays: Beckman SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM (Beckman Test), Siemens (ADVIA Centaur®) SARS-CoV-2 Total (COV2T) (Siemens Test), SBC COVID-19 IgG ELISA (SBC Test) and EliA SARS-CoV-2-Sp1 IgG/IgM/IgA P2 Research (EliA Test) were used for detecting the SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies.

Results

The sensitivity of all tests reached 100% after 42 days of symptom onset. Siemens Test, the only test detecting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, had the best performance in the early diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (day 0–7: 77%; day 8–14: 95%) compared to the other 3 serological tests. All tests showed 100% specificity except SBC Test (98%). COVID-19 patients with pneumonia had significantly higher testing signal values than patients without pneumonia (all p values < 0.05, except EliA IgM Test). However, Siemens Test and SBC Test had highest probability in early prediction of the presence of COVID-19 pneumonia.

Conclusion

Chronological analysis of immune response among COVID-19 patients with different serological tests provides important information in the early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and prediction of the risk of pneumonia after infection.

Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes.