4.7 Article

Diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM antibody tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA in COVID-19 patients

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 26, Issue 8, Pages 1082-1087

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.05.023

Keywords

COVID-19; Diagnosis; ELISA; Immunoassay; Lateral flow assay; Point-of-care testing; SARS-CoV-2; Sensitivity and specificity; Seroconversion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of seven rapid IgG/IgM tests and the Euroimmun IgA/IgG ELISA for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Specificity was evaluated in 103 samples collected before January 2020. Sensitivity and time to seropositivity was evaluated in 167 samples from 94 patients with COVID-19 confirmed with RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab. Results: Specificity (confidence interval) of lateral flow assays (LFAs) was >= 91.3% (84.0-95.5) for IgM, >= 90.3% (82.9-94.8) for IgG, and >= 85.4% (77.2-91.1) for the combination IgM OR IgG. Specificity of the ELISA was 96.1% (90.1-98.8) for IgG and only 73.8% (64.5-81.4) for IgA. Sensitivity 14e25 days after the onset of symptoms was between >= 92.1% (78.5-98.0) and 100% (95.7-100) for IgG LFA compared to 89.5% (75.3-96.4) for IgG ELISA. Positivity of IgM OR IgG for LFA resulted in a decrease in specificity compared to IgG alone without a gain in diagnostic performance, except for VivaDiag. The results for IgM varied significantly between the LFAs with an average overall agreement of only 70% compared to 89% for IgG. The average dynamic trend to seropositivity for IgM was not shorter than for IgG. At the time of hospital admission the sensitivity of LFA was <60%. Conclusions: Sensitivity for the detection of IgG antibodies 14-25 days after the onset of symptoms was >= 92.1% for all seven LFAs compared to 89.5% for the IgG ELISA. The results for IgM varied significantly, and including IgM antibodies in addition to IgG for the interpretation of LFAs did not improve the diagnostic performance. (C) 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available