Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response in PCR positive patients: Comparison of nine tests in relation to clinical data - PubMed (original) (raw)

Comparative Study

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response in PCR positive patients: Comparison of nine tests in relation to clinical data

Paul Naaber et al. PLoS One. 2020.

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are available in various formats, detecting different viral target proteins and antibody subclasses. The specificity and sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are known to vary and very few studies have addressed the performance of these tests in COVID-19 patient groups at different time points. We here compared the sensitivity and specificity of seven commercial (SNIBE, Epitope, Euroimmun, Roche, Abbott, DiaSorin, Biosensor) and two in-house LIPS assays (LIPS N and LIPS S-RBD) IgG/total Ab tests in serum samples from 97 COVID-19 patients and 100 controls, and correlated the results with the patients' clinical data and the time-point the test was performed. We found a remarkable variation in the sensitivity of antibody tests with the following performance: LIPS N (91.8%), Epitope (85.6%), Abbott and in-house LIPS S-RBD (both 84.5%), Roche (83.5%), Euroimmun (82.5%), DiaSorin (81.4%), SNIBE (70.1%), and Biosensor (64.9%). The overall agreement between the tests was between 71-95%, whereas the specificity of all tests was within 98-100%. The correlation with patients' clinical symptoms score ranged from strongest in LIPS N (ρ = 0.41; p<0.001) to nonsignificant in LIPS S-RBD. Furthermore, the time of testing since symptom onset had an impact on the sensitivity of some tests. Our study highlights the importance to consider clinical symptoms, time of testing, and using more than one viral antigen in SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Our results suggest that some antibody tests are more sensitive for the detection of antibodies in early stage and asymptomatic patients, which may explain the contradictory results of previous studies and should be taken into consideration in clinical practice and epidemiological studies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have read the journal's policy and have the following competing interests: PN, KH, JH, IE are employees of SYNLAB Estonia. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Pipeline. https://www.finddx.org/covid-19/pipeline/. Accessed on 10.09.2020.
    1. Bastos ML, Tavaziva G, Abidi SK, Campbell JR, Haraoui LP, Johnston JC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2020; 370:m2516| 10.1136/bmj.m2516 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence summary of the immune response following infection with SARS-CoV-2 or other human coronaviruses. Updated 6 August 2020. https://www.hiqa.ie/reports-and-publications/health-technology-assessmen....
    1. Lassaunière R, Frische A, Harboe ZB, Nielsen ACY, Fomsgaard A1, Krogfelt KA, et al. Evaluation of nine commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. medRxiv preprint 10.1101/2020.04.09.20056325 - DOI
    1. Whitman JD, Hiatt J, Mowery CT, Shy BR, Yu R, Yamamoto TN, et al. Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. medRxiv preprint 10.1101/2020.04.25.20074856. - DOI

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

The study was supported by Estonian Research Council grants PRG377 (LH, PR, PP) and IUT34-19 (PN, ES). SYNLAB Estonia provided support in the form of salaries for authors (PN, KH, JH, IE) and research materials, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

LinkOut - more resources