Back

Performance of six SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in comparison with microneutralisation

Jääskeläinen, A. J.; Kuivanen, S.; Kekäläinen, E.; Ahava, M. J.; Loginov, R.; Kallio-Kokko, H.; Vapalahti, O.; Jarva, H.; Kurkela, S.; Lappalainen, M.

2020-05-22 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.05.18.20101618
Show abstract

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 evaluated specificity and sensitivity 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(R) SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (research use only), 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)] in comparison with a microneutralisation test (MNT). Two specimen panels from serum samples sent to Helsinki University Hospital Laboratory (HUSLAB) were compiled: the patient panel included sera from PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients, and the negative panel 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 with median of 11 days (range 3-51) after onset of symptoms. 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), 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 SARSCoV-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.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 52%
9.9%
2
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 0.5%
7.3%
3
Journal of Clinical Virology
based on 54 papers
Top 0.2%
7.3%
4
Journal of Medical Virology
based on 95 papers
Top 1%
7.3%
5
Journal of Virological Methods
based on 20 papers
Top 0.3%
6.2%
6
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
5.1%
7
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 1%
4.9%
8
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 44%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
9
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 4%
4.4%
10
Viruses
based on 79 papers
Top 2%
2.2%
11
Infectious Diseases
based on 15 papers
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
based on 14 papers
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
1.7%
14
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
based on 15 papers
Top 0.2%
1.5%
15
Journal of Infection
based on 64 papers
Top 4%
1.5%
16
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
based on 54 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
17
BMC Infectious Diseases
based on 110 papers
Top 13%
1.3%
18
Frontiers in Immunology
based on 140 papers
Top 6%
1.3%
19
Journal of Medical Microbiology
based on 14 papers
Top 0.7%
1.2%
20
Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
1.2%
21
Microbiology Spectrum
based on 86 papers
Top 2%
1.2%
22
eBioMedicine
based on 82 papers
Top 7%
0.8%
23
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
based on 18 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 12%
0.8%
25
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 51%
0.8%
26
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 41%
0.8%
27
Frontiers in Microbiology
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
0.6%
28
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
based on 166 papers
Top 13%
0.6%
29
Pathogens
based on 16 papers
Top 1.0%
0.6%
30
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
based on 22 papers
Top 5%
0.6%