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 ... -  《-》

Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Several SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays have been developed recently. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of five immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Two quantitative automated immunoassays (Maglumi™2019-n-Cov IgG and IgM and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA assays) and three lateral flow rapid tests were performed. This retrospective study included 200 residual sera from patients and healthy volunteers. Case serum samples (n = 128) were obtained from COVID-19 patients confirmed by RT-qPCR and CT-scan. Days since onset of symptoms was collected from their medical records. Control non-SARS-CoV-2 samples (n = 72) were obtained from anonymous stored residual serum samples. Maglumi™ IgG/IgM tests showed overall less sensitivity than Euroimmun IgG/IgA test (84.4 % versus 64.3 %). Both tests showed similar specificities of IgG at 99 % and 100 %, respectively. The results from the lateral flow assays were easily interpretable with unambiguous coloured reading bands. The overall sensitivity of the three tests was similar (around 70 %) without any significant differences. The sensitivity of the three lateral flow assays and also of the serological quantitative assays increased during the second week after symptom onset and all reached similar values (91 %-94 %) after 14 days. This study shows accurate and equivalent performance of the five serological antibody assays (ELISA, CLIA and three lateral flow tests) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 14 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. This is compatible with their application in specific clinical contexts and in determining epidemiological strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Montesinos I ，Gruson D ，Kabamba B ，Dahma H ，Van den Wijngaert S ，Reza S ，Carbone V ，Vandenberg O ，Gulbis B ，Wolff F ，Rodriguez-Villalobos H ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Four point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays for diagnosis of COVID-19 and for assessing dynamics of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2.

We aimed to evaluate the role of rapid serological tests in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This retrospective study enrolled 16 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction-confirmed symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and 58 COVID-19 negative patients at a medical center in Taiwan over a 3-month period. Serial serum samples were collected and tested for antibody response using four point-of-care (POC) lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) (ALLTEST 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, Dynamiker 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Rapid Test, ASK COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test, and Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test). Time-dependent detection sensitivity and timeliness of seroconversion were determined and compared between the four POC rapid tests. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the four tests for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after 3 weeks of symptom onset were 100% and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the rapid tests used for detection of IgM and IgG separately and those used for detection of combined total antibody (mainly IgM/IgG). There was no significant difference between the four POC rapid tests in terms of time required for determining seroconversion of COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 with pneumonia demonstrated shorter seroconversion time than those without pneumonia. Though the POC antibody rapid tests based on LFIA showed reliable performance in the detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, the results of these tests should be interpreted and applied appropriately in the context of antibody dynamic of COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 patients complicated with pneumonia exhibited earlier anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response than COVID-19 patients without pneumonia.

Wu JL ，Tseng WP ，Lin CH ，Lee TF ，Chung MY ，Huang CH ，Chen SY ，Hsueh PR ，Chen SC ... -  《-》