Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Evaluation of sixteen ELISA SARS-CoV-2 serological tests.
Jacot, Damien; Moraz, Milo; Coste, Alix T; Aubry, Christele; Sacks, Jilian A; Greub, Gilbert; Croxatto, Antony.
  • Jacot D; Institute of Microbiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Moraz M; Institute of Microbiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Infectious Diseases, Valais Hospital, Central Institute, Sion, Switzerland.
  • Coste AT; Institute of Microbiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Aubry C; Institute of Microbiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Sacks JA; Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Greub G; Institute of Microbiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Croxatto A; Institute of Microbiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. Electronic address: Antony.Croxatto@chuv.ch.
J Clin Virol ; 142: 104931, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322197
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, multiple companies marketed serological tests. Rigorous, independent and comparative performances of these assays on defined clinical specimens are needed.

METHODS:

In a first preliminary phase, we investigated 16 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological ELISA using a panel of 180 sera, comprising 97 sera from patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 83 negative sera sampled before November 1, 2019. In a second phase and to complete the evaluation on the full panel (100 positive and 300 negative), tests that passed pre-defined exclusion criteria of 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity were further evaluated on 220 additional sera chosen to assess possible cross-reactivity with other human viral infections.

RESULTS:

Among the 16 tests evaluated in the preliminary phase, two were excluded due to insufficient sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and one was excluded due to poor specificity. Of the 13 tests evaluated using the full panel comprised of a diverse pool of sera including those reactive against known respiratory viruses, no systematic cross-reactivity was observed. However, heterogeneities across tests were found. Consistent with kinetics of antibody expression, maximal sensitivity was found two weeks post-symptom onset.

CONCLUSION:

In this independent evaluation, we compared the performance of 16 SARS-CoV-2 serological tests using well-characterized sera and found 13 tests with more than 90% sensitivity at 15 days post-symptom onset and 97% specificity across a diverse range of negative samples.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Clin Virol Journal subject: Virology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.jcv.2021.104931

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Clin Virol Journal subject: Virology Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: J.jcv.2021.104931