4.6 Article

Performance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serological Diagnostic Tests and Antibody Kinetics in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.881038

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; antibody; performance; kinetics; binding antibody; neutralizing antibody

Categories

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2020R1C1C1007297, 2021R1A2C2013961]
  2. Chonnam National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute [BCRI21020]
  3. Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2020R1C1C1007297, 2021R1A2C2013961] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the performance of six serological assays for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and found that chemiluminescence assays (CLIAs) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) had high diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. The positivity rate increased over time in both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups. Trace bands in LFIAs influenced test results. There was a strong positive correlation between binding antibody assays and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). More objective interpretable assays and the use of sVNT are recommended.
Serological testing is recommended to support the detection of undiagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, the performance of serological assays has not been sufficiently evaluated. Hence, the performance of six severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binding antibody assays [three chemiluminescence (CLIAs) and three lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)] and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was analyzed in a total of 988 serum samples comprising 389 COVID-19-positives and 599 COVID-19-negatives. The overall diagnostic sensitivities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 54.2 to 56.6% and from 56.3 to 64.3%, respectively. The overall diagnostic specificities of CLIAs and LFIAs ranged from 98.2 to 99.8% and from 97.3 to 99.0%, respectively. In the symptomatic group (n = 321), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 14 days after symptom onset. In the asymptomatic group (n = 68), the positivity rate increased by over 80% in all assays > 21 days after initial RT-PCR detection. In LFIAs, negatively interpreted trace bands accounted for the changes in test performance. Most false-positive results were weak or trace reactions and showed negative results in additional sVNT. For six binding antibody assays, the overall agreement percentages ranged from 91.0 to 97.8%. The median inhibition activity of sVNT was significantly higher in the symptomatic group than in the asymptomatic group (50.0% vs. 29.2%; p < 0.0001). The median times to seropositivity in the symptomatic group were 9.7 days for CLIA-IgG, 9.2 and 9.8 days for two CLIAs-Total (IgM + IgG), 7.7 days for LFIA-IgM, 9.2 days for LFIA-IgG, and 8.8 days for sVNT-IgG, respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between the quantitative results of the four binding antibody assays and sVNT with Spearman rho-values ranging from 0.746 to 0.854. In particular, when using LFIAs, we recommend using more objective interpretable assays or establishing a band interpretation system for each laboratory, accompanied by observer training. We also anticipate that sVNT will play an essential role in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and become the practical routine neutralizing antibody assay.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available