ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The duration of the protective efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is unknown. Thus, an evaluation of the clinical performance of available tests is required. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical performance of LFIA immunoassay compared to ELIA and CLIA immunoassays available in Europe for the detection of IgG antibodies generated by mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Two automated immunoassays (the EUROIMMUN anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG S1 ELISA and the LIAISON de Diasorin anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG S1/S2 test) and a lateral flow immunoassay (the Livzon LFIA anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG S test) were tested. We analyzed 300 samples distributed in three groups: 100 subjects aged over 18 years and under 45 years, 100 subjects aged between 45 and 65 years, and 100 subjects aged over 65 years. The samples were collected before vaccination; at 21 days; and then at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after vaccination. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive probability quotient, negative probability quotient, and concordance (kappa index) were calculated for each serological test. RESULTS: The maximum sensitivity values for IgG were 98.7%, 98.1%, and 97.8% for the EUROIMMUN ELISA, Abbott CLIA, and Livzon LFIA tests, respectively, and the maximum specificity values for IgG were 99.4%, 99.9%%, and 98.4% for the ELISA, CLIA, and LFIA tests, respectively, at the third month after vaccination, representing a decrease in the antibody levels after the sixth month. The best agreement was observed between the ELISA and CLIA tests at 100% (k = 1.00). The agreement between the ELIA, CLIA, and LFIA tests was 99% (k = 0.964) at the second and third month after vaccination. Seroconversion was faster and more durable in the younger age groups. CONCLUSION: Our study examined the equivalent and homogeneous clinical performance for IgG of three immunoassays after vaccination and found LFIA to be the most cost-effective, reliable, and accurate for routine use in population seroconversion and seroprevalence studies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 %) (pâ¯<â¯0.05). The best agreement was observed between CLIA and LFIA assays (97 %; kâ¯=â¯0.936). CONCLUSION: 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.