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.
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 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Sensitivity evaluation of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR detection kits and strategy to reduce false negative 94%
- Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 94%
- Performance Evaluation Of A SARS-COV-2 Rapid Antigentest: Test Performance In The Community In The Netherlands 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of four commercial, fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests suggests a revision of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay 94%
- Analytical and clinical performances of a SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG assay: comparison with neutralization titers 94%
- Lumipulse G SARS-CoV-2 Ag Assay Evaluation for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Detection Using 594 Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples from Different Testing Groups 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of LIAISON QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus with QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus 93%
- Clinical evaluation of BD Veritor™ SARS-CoV-2 and Flu A+B Assay for point-of-care (POC) System 93%
- A highly sensitive and specific SARS-CoV-2 spike- and nucleoprotein-based fluorescent multiplex immunoassay (FMIA) to measure IgG, IgA and IgM class antibodies 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.