Performance of six SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in comparison with microneutralisation.

There is an urgent need for reliable high-throughput serological assays for the management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Preferably, the performance of serological tests for a novel virus should be determined with clinical specimens against a gold standard, i.e. virus neutralisation. We compared the performance of six commercial immunoassays for the detection of SARS-COV-2 IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies, including four automated assays [Abbott SARS-COV-2 IgG (CE marked), Diasorin Liaison® SARS-COV-2 S1/S2 IgG (research use only, RUO), and Euroimmun SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgA (CE marked)], and two rapid lateral flow (immunocromatographic) tests [Acro Biotech 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM (CE marked) and Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology SARS-COV-2 IgG/IgM (CE marked)] with a microneutralisation test (MNT). Two specimen panels from serum samples sent to Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory (HUSLAB) were compiled: the patient panel (N=70) included sera from PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients, and the negative panel (N=81) included sera sent for screening of autoimmune diseases and respiratory virus antibodies in 2018 and 2019. The MNT was carried out for all COVID-19 samples (70 serum samples, 62 individuals) and for 53 samples from the negative panel. Forty-one out of 62 COVID-19 patients showed neutralising antibodies.The specificity and sensitivity values of the commercial tests against MNT, respectively, were as follows: 95.1 %/80.5 % (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 94.9 %/43.8 % (Diasorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 IgG; RUO), 68.3 %/87.8 % (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgA), 86.6 %/70.7 % (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG), 74.4 %/56.1 % (Acro 2019-nCoV IgG), 69.5 %/46.3 % (Acro 2019-nCoV IgM), 97.5 %/71.9 % (Xiamen Biotime SARS-CoV-2 IgG), and 88.8 %/81.3 % (Xiamen Biotime SARS-CoV-2 IgM). This study shows variable performance values. Laboratories should carefully consider their testing process, such as a two-tier approach, in order to optimize the overall performance of SARS- CoV-2 serodiagnostics.

Jääskeläinen AJ ，Kuivanen S ，Kekäläinen E ，Ahava MJ ，Loginov R ，Kallio-Kokko H ，Vapalahti O ，Jarva H ，Kurkela S ，Lappalainen M ... -  《-》

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech).

The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 has promoted the development of new serological tests that could be complementary to RT-PCR. Nevertheless, the assessment of clinical performances of available tests is urgently required as their use has just been initiated for diagnose. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Two automated immunoassays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG/IgA assays) and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19) were tested. 293 specimens were analyzed from patients with a positive RT-PCR response, from patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 but exhibiting a negative response to the RT-PCR detection test, and from control group specimens. Days since symptoms onset were collected from clinical information sheet associated with respiratory tract samples. Overall sensitivity for IgG was equivalent (around 80 %) for CLIA, ELISA and LFIA. Sensitivity for IgG detection, >14 days after onset of symptoms, was 100.0 % for all assays. Overall specificity for IgG was greater for CLIA and LFIA (more than 98 %) compared to ELISA (95.8 %). Specificity was significantly different between IgA ELISA (78.9 %) and IgM LFIA (95.8 %) (p < 0.05). The best agreement was observed between CLIA and LFIA assays (97 %; k = 0.936). Excellent sensitivity for IgG detection was obtained >14 days after onset of symptoms for all immunoassays. Specificity was also excellent for IgG CLIA and IgG LFIA. Our study shows that NG-Test® is reliable and accurate for routine use in clinical laboratories.

Nicol T ，Lefeuvre C ，Serri O ，Pivert A ，Joubaud F ，Dubée V ，Kouatchet A ，Ducancelle A ，Lunel-Fabiani F ，Le Guillou-Guillemette H ... -  《-》

Brief clinical evaluation of six high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assays.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are urgently needed for diagnosis, contact tracing and for epidemiological studies. So far, there is limited data on how recently commercially available, high-throughput immunoassays, using different recombinant SARS-CoV-2 antigens, perform with clinical samples. Focusing on IgG and total antibodies, we demonstrate the performance of four automated immunoassays (Abbott Architect™ i2000 (N protein-based)), Roche cobas™ e 411 analyzer (N protein-based, not differentiating between IgA, IgM or IgG antibodies), LIAISON®XL platform (S1 and S2 protein-based), VIRCLIA® automation system (S1 and N protein-based) in comparison to two ELISA assays (Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG (S1 protein-based) and Virotech SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA (N protein-based)) and an in-house developed plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). We tested follow up serum/plasma samples of individuals PCR-diagnosed with COVID-19. When calculating the overall sensitivity, in a time frame of 49 days after first PCR-positivity, the PRNT as gold standard, showed the highest sensitivity with 93.3% followed by the dual-target assay for the VIRCLIA® automation system with 89%. The overall sensitivity in the group of N protein-based assays ranged from 66.7 to 77.8% and in the S protein-based-assays from 71.1 to 75.6%. Five follow-up samples of three individuals were only detected in either an S and/or N protein-based assay, indicating an individual different immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and the influence of the used assay in the detection of IgG antibodies. This should be further analysed. The specificity of the examined assays was ≥ 97%. However, because of the low or unknown prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, the examined assays in this study are currently primarily eligible for epidemiological investigations, as they have limited information in individual testing.

Kohmer N ，Westhaus S ，Rühl C ，Ciesek S ，Rabenau HF ... -  《-》

Performance evaluation of Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassay in comparison with indirect immunofluorescence and virus microneutralization test.

Serological tests for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are becoming of great interest to determine seroprevalence in a given population, define previous exposure and identify highly reactive human donors for the generation of convalescent serum as therapeutic. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, a fully automated indirect immunoassay that detects antibodies directed to a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid antigen. Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassay was compared to an indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) on sera from patients with COVID-19 collected at different days after symptoms onset or infected by other human coronaviruses. Comparison with neutralization test was also performed. After 7, 14 and >14 days after onset ARCHITECT was positive on 8.3 %; 61.9 % and 100 % of the tested samples compared to 58.3 %; 85.7 % and 100 % by IFA. The sensitivity was 72 % vs. IFA and 66.7 % vs. a real-time PCR, the specificity was 100 %. On 18 samples with neutralizing activity, 17 were positive by Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG. In our study, Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay showed a satisfactory performance, with a very high specificity. IgG reactivity against SARSCoV-2 N antigen was detectable in all patients by two weeks after symptoms onset. In addition, concordance between this serological response and viral neutralization suggests that a strong humoral response may be predictive of a neutralization activity, regardless of the target antigens. This finding supports the use of this automated serological assay in diagnostic algorithm and public health intervention, especially for high loads of testing.

Meschi S ，Colavita F ，Bordi L ，Matusali G ，Lapa D ，Amendola A ，Vairo F ，Ippolito G ，Capobianchi MR ，Castilletti C ，INMICovid-19 laboratory team ... -  《-》

Comparison of commercial lateral flow immunoassays and ELISA for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection.

COVID-19 pandemic has spread worldwide since December 2019. Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing are needed for detection of current or past infections. A wide range of commercial tests is available. However, most of them need to be validated. The aim was to compare a commercial IgG and IgA ELISA (Euroimmun) with three lateral flow immunoassays (LFI): Hangzhou Alltest Biotech, Wuhan UNscience Biotechnology and Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech. Specificity was calculated with 62 available serum samples from 2018/19. The study included 152 sera from patients of which 109 were RT-PCR positive. Sensitivities for ELISA anti SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA were 81.5 % and 93.1 % and specificities 100 % and 80.6 %, respectively. LFI showed variable performances, overall results being better for Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech. Commercial serological tests are useful for detection of antibodies in patients with COVID-19. ELISA presented better results than LFI. The results allowed to incorporate the most sensitive LFI to the daily workflow, combining with ELISA. Careful validation is encouraged before clinical laboratories start using these tests.

Serrano MM ，Rodríguez DN ，Palop NT ，Arenas RO ，Córdoba MM ，Mochón MDO ，Cardona CG ... -  《-》