Back

Diagnostic accuracy of six commercial SARS-CoV-2 IgG/total antibody assays and identification of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in convalescent sera

Stroemer, A.; Grobe, O.; Rose, R.; Fickenscher, H.; Lorentz, T.; Krumbholz, A.

2020-06-17 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.06.15.20131672
Show abstract

The reliable detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG) or total antibodies directed against the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is important for clinical diagnostics and epidemiological studies. Here, we compare the diagnostic accuracy of six commercially available SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG; Diasorin Liaison(R) SARS-CoV-2 S1/2 IgG; Epitope EDI Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 IgG ELISA Kit; Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG); Mikrogen recomWell SARS-CoV-2 IgG) or total SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays (Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2). The test sensitivities were analyzed with a set of 34 sera obtained from 26 patients after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and varied from 76.9% (Euroimmun) to 96.2% (Abbott). The majority of assay results were confirmed in a laboratory-developed plaque reduction neutralization test and by a SARS-CoV-2 IgG-specific line assay including measurement of generally low IgG avidities (Mikrogen recomLine Coronavirus IgG [Aviditat], prototype). Moreover, 100 stored sera collected during summer 2018 (N = 50) and winter season 2018/2019 (N = 50) were included to demonstrate test specificities. These varied from 96.0% (DiaSorin) to 100% (Epitope EDI). A subset of sera were retested with a lateral flow test (STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Duo) and a considerably lower sensitivity was noted. Overall, the diagnostic accuracy of the six SARS-CoV-2 IgG/total antibody assays was good and varied from 92.9% (Euroimmun) to 98.4% (Abbott). Due to the different specificities, results of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should be interpreted with caution. A high proportion of antibody-positive patient sera demonstrated neutralizing capacity against SARS-CoV-2.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Virology
based on 54 papers
Top 0.1%
15.3%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 0.6%
12.5%
3
Journal of Medical Virology
based on 95 papers
Top 1.0%
7.5%
4
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
based on 54 papers
Top 0.5%
5.0%
5
Journal of Virological Methods
based on 20 papers
Top 0.5%
4.5%
6
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
3.8%
7
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 78%
2.9%
9
Journal of Infection
based on 64 papers
Top 1%
2.8%
10
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
based on 18 papers
Top 0.2%
2.8%
11
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 55%
2.8%
12
Viruses
based on 79 papers
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Eurosurveillance
based on 77 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
14
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 12%
2.3%
15
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 7%
2.3%
16
Microbiology Spectrum
based on 86 papers
Top 1%
2.2%
17
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
based on 15 papers
Top 0.1%
1.8%
18
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 6%
1.6%
19
Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
1.3%
20
Clinical Chemistry
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
21
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 137 papers
Top 8%
1.3%
22
Infectious Diseases
based on 15 papers
Top 0.6%
1.2%
23
Emerging Infectious Diseases
based on 84 papers
Top 9%
1.2%
24
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
25
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 44%
0.7%
26
eBioMedicine
based on 82 papers
Top 9%
0.7%
27
The Lancet Microbe
based on 33 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 22%
0.7%
29
Microorganisms
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
0.7%