A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF SARS-COV-2 IGM AND IGG TESTS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH COVID-19

Testing for SARS-CoV-2: lessons learned and current use cases

SUMMARYThe emergence and worldwide dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 required both urgent development of new diagnostic tests and expansion of diagnostic testing capacity on an unprecedented scale. The rapid evolution of technologies that allowed testing to move out of traditional laboratories and into point-of-care testing centers and the home transformed the diagnostic landscape. Four years later, with the end of the formal public health emergency but continued global circulation of the virus, it is important to take a fresh look at available SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies and consider how they should be used going forward. This review considers current use case scenarios for SARS-CoV-2 antigen, nucleic acid amplification, and immunologic tests, incorporating the latest evidence for analytical/clinical performance characteristics and advantages/limitations for each test type to inform current debates about how tests should or should not be used.

Performance of Three Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Anti-S and One Anti-N Immunoassays for the Monitoring of Immune Status and Vaccine Response

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of three anti-S and one anti-N assays that were available to the project in detecting antibody levels after three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson). It also aimed to assess the association of age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccine timing, and vaccine side effects on antibody levels in a cohort of 827 individuals. In September 2021, 698 vaccinated individuals donated blood samples as part of the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) COVID-19 Immunity Study. These individuals also participated in a comprehensive survey covering demographic information, vaccination status, and associated side effects. Additionally, 305 age- and gender-matched samples were obtained from the ADLM 2015 sample bank as pre-COVID-19-negative samples. All these samples underwent antibody level analysis using three anti-S assays, namely Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman assay), Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Ortho assay), Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens assay), and one anti-N antibody assay: Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab assay (BioRad assay). A total of 827 samples (580 COVID-19 samples and 247 pre-COVID-19 samples) received results for all four assays and underwent further analysis. Beckman, Ortho, and Siemens anti-S assays showed an overall sensitivity of 99.5%, 97.6%, and 96.9%, and specificity of 90%, 100%, and 99.6%, respectively. All three assays indicated 100% sensitivity for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine and boosters, and over 99% sensitivity for the Pfizer vaccine. Sensitivities varied from 70.4% (Siemens), 81.5% (Ortho), and 96.3% (Beckman) for individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. BioRad anti-N assays demonstrated 46.2% sensitivity and 99.25% specificity based on results from individuals with self-reported infection. The highest median anti-S antibody levels were measured in individuals who received the Moderna vaccine, followed by Pfizer and then Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Higher anti-S antibody levels were significantly associated with younger age and closer proximity to the last vaccine dose but were not associated with gender, race, or ethnicity. Participants with higher anti-S levels experienced significantly more side effects as well as more severe side effects (e.g., muscle pain, chills, fever, and moderate limitations) (p < 0.05). Anti-N antibody levels only indicated a significant correlation with headache. This study indicated performance variations among different anti-S assays, both among themselves and when analyzing individuals with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Caution should be exercised when conducting large-scale studies to ensure that the same platform and/or assays are used for the most effective interpretation of the data.

Comprehensive, Comparative Evaluation of 35 Manual SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays

The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in hundreds of in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDs) coming to market, facilitated by regulatory authorities allowing "emergency use" without a comprehensive evaluation of performance. The World Health Organization (WHO) released target product profiles (TPPs) specifying acceptable performance characteristics for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assay devices. We evaluated 26 rapid diagnostic tests and 9 enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for anti-SARS-CoV-2, suitable for use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), against these TPPs and other performance characteristics. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 60.1 to 100% and 56.0 to 100%, respectively. Five of 35 test kits reported no false reactivity for 55 samples with potentially cross-reacting substances. Six test kits reported no false reactivity for 35 samples containing interfering substances, and only one test reported no false reactivity with samples positive for other coronaviruses (not SARS-CoV-2). This study demonstrates that a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of test kits against defined specifications is essential for the selection of test kits, especially in a pandemic setting. IMPORTANCE The markets have been flooded with hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests, and although there are many published reports on their performance, comparative reports are far fewer and tend to be limited to only a few tests. In this report, we comparatively assessed 35 rapid diagnostic tests or microtiter plate enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) using a large set of samples from individuals with a history of mild to moderate COVID-19, commensurate with the target population for serosurveillance, which included serum samples from individuals previously infected, at undetermined time periods, with other seasonal human coronaviruses, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and SARS-CoV-1. The significant heterogeneity in their performances, with only a few tests meeting WHO target product profile performance requirements, highlights the importance of independent comparative assessments to inform the use and procurement of these tests for both diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.

Comparison of the conventional tube and erythrocyte-magnetized technology in titration of red blood cell alloantibodies

BACKGROUND

Erythrocyte alloantibodies are mainly produced after immune stimulation, such as blood transfusion, pregnancy, and transplantation, and are the leading causes of severe hemolytic transfusion reactions and difficulty in blood grouping and matching. Therefore, antibody screening is critical to prevent and improve red cell alloantibodies. Routine tube assay is the primary detection method of antibody screening. Recently, erythrocyte-magnetized technology (EMT) has been increasingly used in clinical practice. This study intends to probe the application and efficacy of the conventional tube and EMT in red blood cell alloantibody titration to provide a reference for clinical blood transfusion.

AIM

To investigate the application value of conventional tube and EMT in red blood cell alloantibody titration and enhance the safety of blood transfusion practice.

METHODS

A total of 1298 blood samples were harvested from blood donors at the Department of Blood Transfusion of our hospital from March 2021 to December 2022. A 5 mL blood sample was collected in tubing, which was then cut, and the whole blood was put into a test tube for centrifugation to separate the serum. Different red blood cell blood group antibody titers were simultaneously detected using the tube polybrene test, tube antiglobulin test (AGT), and EMT screening irregular antibody methods to determine the best test method.

RESULTS

Simultaneous detection was performed through the tube polybrene test, tube AGT and EMT screening irregular antibodies. It was discovered that the EMT screening irregular antibody method could detect all immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) irregular antibodies, and the results of manual tube AGT were satisfactory, but the operation time was lengthy, and the equipment had a large footprint. The EMT screening irregular antibody assay was also conducted to determine its activity against type O Rh (D) red blood cells, and the outcomes were satisfactory. Furthermore, compared to the conventional tube method, the EMT screening irregular antibody method was more cost-effective and had significantly higher detection efficiency.

CONCLUSION

With a higher detection rate, the EMT screening irregular antibody method can detect both IgG and IgM irregular antibodies faster and more effectively than the conventional tube method.

Current immunoassays and detection of antibodies elicited by Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection

The present study aimed to determine whether current commercial immunoassays are adequate for detecting anti-Omicron antibodies. We analyzed the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response of 23 unvaccinated individuals 1-2 months after an Omicron infection. All blood samples were tested with a live virus neutralization assay using a clinical Omicron BA.1 strain and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. We assessed three anti-Spike immunoassays (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant [Abbott S], Wantaï anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody ELISA [Wantaï], Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay [Roche]) and one anti-Nucleocapsid immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay [Abbott N]). Omicron neutralizing antibodies were detected in all samples with the live virus neutralization assay. The detection rate of the Abbott S, Wantai, Roche, and Abbott N immunoassays were 65.2%, 69.6%, 86.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. The sensitivities of Abbott S and Wantai immunoassays were significantly lower than that of the live virus neutralization assay (p = 0.004, p = 0.009; Fisher's exact test). Antibody concentrations obtained with anti-S immunoassays were correlated with Omicron neutralizing antibody concentrations. These data provide clinical evidence of the loss of performance of some commercial immunoassays to detect antibodies elicited by Omicron infections. It highlights the need to optimize these assays by adapting antigens to the circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

The Performances of Three Commercially Available Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies at Different Time Points Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performances of three commercially available antibody assays for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies at different time points following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sera from 536 cases, including 207 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with the Wantai receptor binding domain (RBD) total antibody assay, Liaison S1/S2 IgG assay and Alinity i nucleocapsid IgG assay and compared to a two-step reference ELISA (SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG and SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and Cohen's kappa were calculated for the commercial assays. The assay's sensitivities varied greatly, from 68.7% to 95.3%, but the specificities remained high (96.9-99.1%). The three tests showed good performances in sera sampled 31 to 60 days after PCR positivity compared to the reference ELISA. The total antibody test performed better than the IgG tests the first 30 days and the nucleocapsid IgG test showed reduced sensitivity two months or more after PCR positivity. Hence, the test performances at different time points should be taken into consideration in clinical practice and epidemiological studies. Spike or RBD IgG tests are preferable in sera sampled more than two months following SARS-CoV-2 infection.