BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has emerged at the end of 2019. Aside from the detection of viral genome with specific RT-PCR, there is a growing need for reliable determination of the serological status. We aimed at evaluating five SARS-CoV-2 serology assays. METHODS: An in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA), two ELISA kits (EUROIMMUN® ELISA SARS-CoV-2 IgG and NovaLisa® SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM) and two lateral flow assays (T-Tek® SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Antibody Test Kit and Sure Bio-tech® SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Rapid Test) were compared on 40 serums from RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and 10 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative subjects as controls. RESULTS: Control subjects tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with all five systems. Estimated sensitivities varied from 35.5 to 71.0% for IgG detection and from 19.4 to 64.5% for IgM detection. For IgG, in-house IFA, EuroImmun, T-Tek and NovaLisa displayed 50-72.5% agreement with other systems except IFA vs EuroImmun and T-Tek vs NovaLisa. Intermethod agreement for IgM determination was between 30 and 72.5%. DISCUSSION: The overall intermethod agreement was moderate. This inconsistency could be explained by the diversity of assay methods, antigens used and immunoglobulin isotype tested. Estimated sensitivities were low, highlighting the limited value of antibody detection in CoVID-19. CONCLUSION: Comparison of five systems for SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies showed limited sensitivity and overall concordance. The place and indications of serological status assessment with currently available tools in the CoVID-19 pandemic need further evaluations.
BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has emerged at the end of 2019. Aside from the detection of viral genome with specific RT-PCR, there is a growing need for reliable determination of the serological status. We aimed at evaluating five SARS-CoV-2 serology assays. METHODS: An in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA), two ELISA kits (EUROIMMUN® ELISA SARS-CoV-2 IgG and NovaLisa® SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM) and two lateral flow assays (T-Tek® SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM Antibody Test Kit and Sure Bio-tech® SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Rapid Test) were compared on 40 serums from RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and 10 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative subjects as controls. RESULTS: Control subjects tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with all five systems. Estimated sensitivities varied from 35.5 to 71.0% for IgG detection and from 19.4 to 64.5% for IgM detection. For IgG, in-house IFA, EuroImmun, T-Tek and NovaLisa displayed 50-72.5% agreement with other systems except IFA vs EuroImmun and T-Tek vs NovaLisa. Intermethod agreement for IgM determination was between 30 and 72.5%. DISCUSSION: The overall intermethod agreement was moderate. This inconsistency could be explained by the diversity of assay methods, antigens used and immunoglobulin isotype tested. Estimated sensitivities were low, highlighting the limited value of antibody detection in CoVID-19. CONCLUSION: Comparison of five systems for SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies showed limited sensitivity and overall concordance. The place and indications of serological status assessment with currently available tools in the CoVID-19 pandemic need further evaluations.
Authors: Patrick Tang; Marie Louie; Susan E Richardson; Marek Smieja; Andrew E Simor; Frances Jamieson; Margaret Fearon; Susan M Poutanen; Tony Mazzulli; Raymond Tellier; James Mahony; Mark Loeb; Astrid Petrich; Max Chernesky; Allison McGeer; Donald E Low; Elizabeth Phillips; Steven Jones; Nathalie Bastien; Yan Li; Daryl Dick; Allen Grolla; Lisa Fernando; Timothy F Booth; Bonnie Henry; Anita R Rachlis; Larissa M Matukas; David B Rose; Reena Lovinsky; Sharon Walmsley; Wayne L Gold; Sigmund Krajden Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-01-06 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: J Van Elslande; E Houben; M Depypere; A Brackenier; S Desmet; E André; M Van Ranst; K Lagrou; P Vermeersch Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Marianna Traugott; Stephan Walter Aberle; Judith Helene Aberle; Hannah Griebler; Mario Karolyi; Erich Pawelka; Elisabeth Puchhammer-Stöckl; Alexander Zoufaly; Lukas Weseslindtner Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Nisreen M A Okba; Marcel A Müller; Wentao Li; Chunyan Wang; Corine H GeurtsvanKessel; Victor M Corman; Mart M Lamers; Reina S Sikkema; Erwin de Bruin; Felicity D Chandler; Yazdan Yazdanpanah; Quentin Le Hingrat; Diane Descamps; Nadhira Houhou-Fidouh; Chantal B E M Reusken; Berend-Jan Bosch; Christian Drosten; Marion P G Koopmans; Bart L Haagmans Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-21 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Dhanasekaran Sakthivel; David Delgado-Diaz; Laura McArthur; William Hopper; Jack S Richards; Charles A Narh Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-11-25