Analytical and clinical validation of an ELISA for specific SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies.

The development of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests is massive. The external validation of their performance is needed before use in clinical routine practice. Our study aims at assessing the analytical and clinical performance of two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests detecting antibodies directed against the virus nucleocapsid protein: The NovaLisa SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) test (NovaTec) allowing a separate detection of each antibody and the Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab test (Bio-Rad) detecting total antibodies (IgM, IgA, and IgG). Two-hundred and eight coronavirus disease 2019 samples from 48 quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) confirmed patients were used to perform the sensitivity analysis. Non-SARS-CoV-2 sera (n = 79) with a potential cross-reaction to SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays were included in the specificity analysis. In addition, using receiver operator characteristic curves, adapted cut-off for improvement of the performances were proposed. The kinetics of these antibodies was also assessed over 8 weeks. Two weeks after the RT-qPCR positive detection, the NovaLisa test shows a sensitivity and specificity of 94.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.1%-98.6%) and 96.2% (95% CI: 89.4%-98.7%) for IgG, of 89.7% (95% CI: 76.4%-95.9%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%-98.8%) for IgA, and of 48.7% (95% CI: 33.9%-63.8%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%-99.8%) for IgM. With the Platelia system, the specificity and sensitivity were 97.4% (95% CI: 92.1%-99.7%) and 94.9% (95% CI: 87.7%-98.0%) for total antibodies using the adapted cut-offs. The NovaLisa and the Platelia tests have satisfactory analytical performances. The clinical performances are excellent for IgG, IgA, and total antibodies especially if the cut-off is optimized.

Tré-Hardy M ，Wilmet A ，Beukinga I ，Favresse J ，Dogné JM ，Douxfils J ，Blairon L ... -  《-》

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: IgA correlates with severity of disease in early COVID-19 infection.

Timing of detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and their use to support the diagnosis are of increasing interest. We used the Gold Standard Diagnostics ELISA to evaluate the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in sera of 82 hospitalized patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Serum samples were collected 1-59 days post-onset of symptoms (PoS) and we examined the association of age, sex, disease severity, and symptoms' duration with antibody levels. We also tested sera of 100 ambulatory hospital employees with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and samples collected during convalescence, 35-57 days PoS. All but four of the admitted patients (95.1%) developed antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Antibodies were detected within 7 days PoS; IgA in 60.0%, IgM in 53.3%, and IgG in 46.7% of samples. IgG positivity increased to 100% on Day 21. We did not observe significant differences in the rate of antibody development in regard to age and sex. IgA levels were highest in patients with a severe and critical illness. In multiple regression analyses, only IgA levels were statistically significantly correlated with critical disease (p = .05) regardless of age, sex, and duration of symptoms. Among 100 ambulatory hospital employees who had antibody testing after 4 weeks PoS only 10% had positive IgA antibodies. The most frequently isolated isotype in sera of employees after 30 days PoS was IgG (88%). IgA was the predominant immunoglobulin in early disease and correlated independently with a critical illness. IgG antibodies remained detectable in almost 90% of samples collected up to two months after infection.

Zervou FN ，Louie P ，Stachel A ，Zacharioudakis IM ，Ortiz-Mendez Y ，Thomas K ，Aguero-Rosenfeld ME ... -  《-》

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests with different antigen targets.

These last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests available in April 2020 in Switzerland. In a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other viruses. In the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, five had a sensitivity and specificity above 90 % and 98 % respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no test showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response. The majority of the evaluated tests exhibited high performances of IgG/pan-Ig sensitivity and specificity to detect the serological response of moderately to critically ill hospitalized patients. The IgM and IgA tests showed mostly insufficient performances with no added value for the early diagnostic on the cohort tested in this study.

Coste AT ，Jaton K ，Papadimitriou-Olivgeris M ，Greub G ，Croxatto A ... -  《-》

Recent Advances in the Evaluation of Serological Assays for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19.

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.

Chiereghin A ，Zagari RM ，Galli S ，Moroni A ，Gabrielli L ，Venturoli S ，Bon I ，Rossini G ，Saracino IM ，Pavoni M ，Lafratta S ，Deni A ，Felici S ，Borghi M ，Guerra L ，Raumer L ，Lodi V ，Viale P ，Attard L ，Lazzarotto T ，IRCCS St. Orsola Polyclinic of Bologna COVID-19 Research Team ... -  《Frontiers in Public Health》

Closing the serological gap in the diagnostic testing for COVID-19: The value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies.

During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the early diagnosis of patients is a priority. Serological assays, in particular immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgG anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have today several applications but the interpretation of their results remains an open challenge. Given the emerging role of the IgA isotype in the COVID-19 diagnostics, we aimed to identify the SARS-CoV-2 IgA antibodies in a COVID-19 population seronegative for IgM. A total of 30 patients hospitalized in San Giovanni di Dio Hospital (Florence, Italy) for COVID-19, seronegative for IgM antibodies, have been studied for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. They all had a positive oro/nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction result. Assays used were a chemiluminescent assay measuring SARS-CoV-2 specific IgM and IgG (S + N) and an ELISA, measuring specific IgG (S1) and IgA antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the 30 patients, eight were positive for IgA, seven were positive for IgG (N + S), and two for IgG (S1), at the first point (5-7 days from the onset of symptoms). The IgA antibodies mean values at the second (9-13 days) and third (21-25 days) time points were even more than twice as high as IgG assays. The agreement between the two IgG assays was moderate (Cohen's K = 0.59; SE = 0.13). The inclusion of the IgA antibodies determination among serological tests of the COVID-19 diagnostic is recommended. IgA antibodies may help to close the serological gap of the COVID-19. Variations among anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays should be considered in the interpretation of results.

Infantino M ，Manfredi M ，Grossi V ，Lari B ，Fabbri S ，Benucci M ，Fortini A ，Damiani A ，Mobilia EM ，Panciroli M ，Pancani S ，Pesce G ... -  《-》