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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

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》

Performance evaluation of two SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM rapid tests (Covid-Presto and NG-Test) and one IgG automated immunoassay (Abbott).

The aim of this study was to assess the analytical performances, sensitivity and specificity, of two rapid tests (Covid- Presto® test rapid Covid-19 IgG/IgM and NG-Test® IgM-IgG COVID-19) and one automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG) for detecting anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. This study was performed with: (i) a positive panel constituted of 88 SARS-CoV-2 specimens collected from patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, and (ii) a negative panel of 120 serum samples, all collected before November 2019, including 64 samples with a cross-reactivity panel. Sensitivity of Covid-Presto® test for IgM and IgG was 78.4% and 92.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of NG-Test® for IgM and IgG was 96.6% and 94.9%, respectively. Sensitivity of Abbott IgG assay was 96.5% showing an excellent agreement with the two rapid tests (κ = 0.947 and κ = 0.936 for NGTest ® and Covid-Presto® test, respectively). An excellent agreement was also observed between the two rapid tests (κ = 0.937). Specificity for IgM was 100% and 86.5% for Covid-Presto® test and NG-Test®, respectively. Specificity for IgG was 92.0%, 94.9% and 96.5% for Covid-Presto®, NGTest ®, and Abbott, respectively. Most of the false positive results observed with NG-Test® resulted from samples containing malarial antibodies. In conclusion, performances of these 2 rapid tests are very good and comparable to those obtained with automated immunoassay, except for IgM specificity with the NG-Test®. Thus, isolated IgM should be cautiously interpreted due to the possible false-positive reactions with this test. Finally, before their large use, the rapid tests must be reliably evaluated with adequate and large panel including early seroconversion and possible cross-reactive samples.

Charpentier C ，Ichou H ，Damond F ，Bouvet E ，Chaix ML ，Ferré V ，Delaugerre C ，Mahjoub N ，Larrouy L ，Le Hingrat Q ，Visseaux B ，Mackiewicz V ，Descamps D ，Fidouh-Houhou N ... -  《-》

Unexpected high frequency of unspecific reactivities by testing pre-epidemic blood specimens from Europe and Africa with SARS-CoV-2 IgG-IgM antibody rapid tests points to IgM as the Achilles heel.

We aimed to evaluate the rates of false-positive test results of three rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM detection. Two serum panels from patients hospitalized in Paris, France, and from patients living in Bangui, Central African Republic, acquired before the 2019 COVID-19 outbreak, were tested by 3 CE IVD-labeled RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 serology (BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 BSS [IgG/IgM]; SIENNA™ COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette; NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19). Detectable IgG or IgM reactivities could be observed in 31 (3.43%) of the 902 IgG and IgM bands of the 3 RDTs used with all pre-epidemic sera. The frequencies of IgG/IgM reactivities were similar for European (3.20%) and African (3.55%) sera. IgM reactivities were observed in 9 European and 14 African sera, while IgG reactivity was observed in only 1 African serum (15.1% vs. 0.66%). The test NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19 showed the highest rates of IgG or IgM reactivities (6.12% [18/294]), while the test BIOSYNEX® COVID-19 BSS (IgG/IgM) showed the lowest rate (1.36% [4/294]). Some combinations of 2 RDTs in series allowed decreasing significantly the risk of false-positive test results. Our observations point to the risk of false-positive reactivities when using currently available RDT for SARS-CoV-2 serological screening, especially for the IgM band, even if the test is CE IVD-labeled and approved by national health authorities, and provide the rational basis for confirmatory testing by another RDT in case of positive initial screening.

Mboumba Bouassa RS ，Péré H ，Tonen-Wolyec S ，Longo JD ，Moussa S ，Mbopi-Keou FX ，Mossoro-Kpinde CD ，Grésenguet G ，Veyer D ，Bélec L ... -  《-》