Angela Chiereghin1, Rocco Maurizio Zagari2, Silvia Galli3, Alessandra Moroni3, Liliana Gabrielli3, Simona Venturoli3, Isabella Bon3, Giada Rossini3, Ilaria Maria Saracino1, Matteo Pavoni1, Silvia Lafratta1, Alessandro Deni1, Silvia Felici1, Michele Borghi1, Luca Guerra4, Luigi Raumer4, Vittorio Lodi5, Pierluigi Viale6, Luciano Attard6, Tiziana Lazzarotto1. 1. Microbiology Unit, Department of Specialized, Experimental, and Diagnostic Medicine, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico St. Orsola Polyclinic, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico St. Orsola Polyclinic, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 3. Microbiology Unit, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico St. Orsola Polyclinic, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 4. Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico St. Orsola Polyclinic and Azienda Unita' Sanitaria Locale Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 5. Occupational Health Unit, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico St. Orsola Polyclinic, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 6. Infectious Diseases Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico St. Orsola Polyclinic, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
Introduction: Few data on the diagnostic performance of serological tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are currently available. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of five different widely used commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies using reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in nasopharyngeal swab as reference standard test. Methods: A total of 337 plasma samples collected in the period April-June 2020 from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive (n = 207) and negative (n = 130) subjects were investigated by one point-of-care lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA IgG and IgM, Technogenetics) and four fully automated assays: two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA-iFlash IgG and IgM, Shenzhen YHLO Biotech and CLIA-LIAISON® XL IgG, DiaSorin), one electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA-Elecsys® total predominant IgG, Roche), and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA IgA, Euroimmune). Results: The overall sensitivity of all IgG serological assays was >80% and the specificity was >97%. The sensitivity of IgG assays was lower within 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms ranging from 70.8 to 80%. The LFIA and CLIA-iFlash IgM showed an overall low sensitivity of 47.6 and 54.6%, while the specificity was 98.5 and 96.2%, respectively. The ELISA IgA yielded a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 81.7%. However, the ELISA IgA result was indeterminate in 11.7% of cases. Conclusions: IgG serological assays seem to be a reliable tool for the retrospective diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM assays seem to have a low sensitivity and IgA assay is limited by a substantial rate of indeterminate results.
Introduction: Few data on the diagnostic performance of serological tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are currently available. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of five different widely used commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies using reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in nasopharyngeal swab as reference standard test. Methods: A total of 337 plasma samples collected in the period April-June 2020 from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive (n = 207) and negative (n = 130) subjects were investigated by one point-of-care lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA IgG and IgM, Technogenetics) and four fully automated assays: two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA-iFlash IgG and IgM, Shenzhen YHLO Biotech and CLIA-LIAISON® XL IgG, DiaSorin), one electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA-Elecsys® total predominant IgG, Roche), and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA IgA, Euroimmune). Results: The overall sensitivity of all IgG serological assays was >80% and the specificity was >97%. The sensitivity of IgG assays was lower within 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms ranging from 70.8 to 80%. The LFIA and CLIA-iFlash IgM showed an overall low sensitivity of 47.6 and 54.6%, while the specificity was 98.5 and 96.2%, respectively. The ELISA IgA yielded a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 81.7%. However, the ELISA IgA result was indeterminate in 11.7% of cases. Conclusions: IgG serological assays seem to be a reliable tool for the retrospective diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM assays seem to have a low sensitivity and IgA assay is limited by a substantial rate of indeterminate results.
Authors: Gabriel Acca Barreira; Emilly Henrique Dos Santos; Maria Fernanda Bádue Pereira; Karen Alessandra Rodrigues; Mussya Cisotto Rocha; Kelly Aparecida Kanunfre; Heloisa Helena de Sousa Marques; Thelma Suely Okay; Adriana Pasmanik Eisencraft; Alfio Rossi Junior; Alice Lima Fante; Aline Pivetta Cora; Amelia Gorete A de Costa Reis; Ana Paula Scoleze Ferrer; Anarella Penha Meirelles de Andrade; Andreia Watanabe; Angelina Maria Freire Gonçalves; Aurora Rosaria Pagliara Waetge; Camila Altenfelder Silva; Carina Ceneviva; Carolina Dos Santos Lazari; Deipara Monteiro Abellan; Ester Cerdeira Sabino; Fabíola Roberta Marim Bianchini; Flávio Ferraz de Paes Alcantara; Gabriel Frizzo Ramos; Gabriela Nunes Leal; Isadora Souza Rodriguez; João Renato Rebello Pinho; Jorge David Avaizoglou Carneiro; Jose Albino Paz; Juliana Carvalho Ferreira; Juliana Ferreira Ferranti; Juliana de Oliveira Achili Ferreira; Juliana Valéria de Souza Framil; Katia Regina da Silva; Karina Lucio de Medeiros Bastos; Karine Vusberg Galleti; Lilian Maria Cristofani; Lisa Suzuki; Lucia Maria Arruda Campos; Maria Beatriz de Moliterno Perondi; Maria de Fatima Rodrigues Diniz; Maria Fernanda Mota Fonseca; Mariana Nutti de Almeida Cordon; Mariana Pissolato; Marina Silva Peres; Marlene Pereira Garanito; Marta Imamura; Mayra de Barros Dorna; Michele Luglio; Nadia Emi Aikawa; Natalia Viu Degaspare; Neusa Keico Sakita; Nicole Lee Udsen; Paula Gobi Scudeller; Paula Vieira de Vincenzi Gaiolla; Rafael da Silva Giannasi Severini; Regina Maria Rodrigues; Ricardo Katsuya Toma; Ricardo Iunis Citrangulo de Paula; Patricia Palmeira; Silvana Forsait; Sylvia Costa Lima Farhat; Tânia Miyuki Shimoda Sakano; Vera Hermina Kalika Koch; Vilson Cobello Junior Journal: Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 2.169
Authors: Nina Koerber; Alina Priller; Sarah Yazici; Tanja Bauer; Ulrike Protzer; Percy A Knolle; Cho-Chin Cheng; Hrvoje Mijočević; Hannah Wintersteller; Samuel Jeske; Emanuel Vogel; Martin Feuerherd; Kathrin Tinnefeld; Christof Winter; Jürgen Ruland; Markus Gerhard; Bernhard Haller; Catharina Christa; Otto Zelger; Hedwig Roggendorf; Martin Halle; Johanna Erber; Paul Lingor; Oliver Keppler; Dietmar Zehn Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Fien Vanroye; Dorien Van den Bossche; Isabel Brosius; Bieke Tack; Marjan Van Esbroeck; Jan Jacobs Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Stephan Winklmeier; Katharina Eisenhut; Damla Taskin; Heike Rübsamen; Ramona Gerhards; Celine Schneider; Paul R Wratil; Marcel Stern; Peter Eichhorn; Oliver T Keppler; Matthias Klein; Simone Mader; Tania Kümpfel; Edgar Meinl Journal: iScience Date: 2021-12-20