Introduction: Few data on the diagnostic performance of serological tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are currently available. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of five different widely used commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies using reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in nasopharyngeal swab as reference standard test. Methods: A total of 337 plasma samples collected in the period April–June 2020 from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive (n = 207) and negative (n = 130) subjects were investigated by one point-of-care lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA IgG and IgM, Technogenetics) and four fully automated assays: two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA-iFlash IgG and IgM, Shenzhen YHLO Biotech and CLIA-LIAISON® XL IgG, DiaSorin), one electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA-Elecsys® total predominant IgG, Roche), and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA IgA, Euroimmune). Results: The overall sensitivity of all IgG serological assays was >80% and the specificity was >97%. The sensitivity of IgG assays was lower within 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms ranging from 70.8 to 80%. The LFIA and CLIA-iFlash IgM showed an overall low sensitivity of 47.6 and 54.6%, while the specificity was 98.5 and 96.2%, respectively. The ELISA IgA yielded a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 81.7%. However, the ELISA IgA result was indeterminate in 11.7% of cases. Conclusions: IgG serological assays seem to be a reliable tool for the retrospective diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM assays seem to have a low sensitivity and IgA assay is limited by a substantial rate of indeterminate results.

Recent Advances in the Evaluation of Serological Assays for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 / Chiereghin A.; Zagari R.M.; Galli S.; Moroni A.; Gabrielli L.; Venturoli S.; Bon I.; Rossini G.; Saracino I.M.; Pavoni M.; Lafratta S.; Deni A.; Felici S.; Borghi M.; Guerra L.; Raumer L.; Lodi V.; Viale P.; Attard L.; Lazzarotto T.; Borgatti E.C.; Leone M.; Mancini R.; Petrisli E.; Turello G.; Gaibani P.; Vocale C.; Roncarati G.; Magnani S.; Fioro M.A.; Fava M.; Marzaduri A.; Di Felice G.; Caveduri F.. - In: FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. - ISSN 2296-2565. - STAMPA. - 8:(2021), pp. 620222.1-620222.9. [10.3389/fpubh.2020.620222]

Recent Advances in the Evaluation of Serological Assays for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19

Chiereghin A.;Zagari R. M.;Venturoli S.;Bon I.;Saracino I. M.;Pavoni M.;Lafratta S.;Deni A.;Felici S.;Borghi M.;Raumer L.;Viale P.;Attard L.;Lazzarotto T.
;
Borgatti E. C.;Leone M.;Petrisli E.;Turello G.;Gaibani P.;Vocale C.;Roncarati G.;Di Felice G.;
2021

Abstract

Introduction: Few data on the diagnostic performance of serological tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are currently available. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of five different widely used commercial serological assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2–specific IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies using reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in nasopharyngeal swab as reference standard test. Methods: A total of 337 plasma samples collected in the period April–June 2020 from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive (n = 207) and negative (n = 130) subjects were investigated by one point-of-care lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA IgG and IgM, Technogenetics) and four fully automated assays: two chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA-iFlash IgG and IgM, Shenzhen YHLO Biotech and CLIA-LIAISON® XL IgG, DiaSorin), one electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA-Elecsys® total predominant IgG, Roche), and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA IgA, Euroimmune). Results: The overall sensitivity of all IgG serological assays was >80% and the specificity was >97%. The sensitivity of IgG assays was lower within 2 weeks from the onset of symptoms ranging from 70.8 to 80%. The LFIA and CLIA-iFlash IgM showed an overall low sensitivity of 47.6 and 54.6%, while the specificity was 98.5 and 96.2%, respectively. The ELISA IgA yielded a sensitivity of 84.3% and specificity of 81.7%. However, the ELISA IgA result was indeterminate in 11.7% of cases. Conclusions: IgG serological assays seem to be a reliable tool for the retrospective diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgM assays seem to have a low sensitivity and IgA assay is limited by a substantial rate of indeterminate results.
2021
Recent Advances in the Evaluation of Serological Assays for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 / Chiereghin A.; Zagari R.M.; Galli S.; Moroni A.; Gabrielli L.; Venturoli S.; Bon I.; Rossini G.; Saracino I.M.; Pavoni M.; Lafratta S.; Deni A.; Felici S.; Borghi M.; Guerra L.; Raumer L.; Lodi V.; Viale P.; Attard L.; Lazzarotto T.; Borgatti E.C.; Leone M.; Mancini R.; Petrisli E.; Turello G.; Gaibani P.; Vocale C.; Roncarati G.; Magnani S.; Fioro M.A.; Fava M.; Marzaduri A.; Di Felice G.; Caveduri F.. - In: FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. - ISSN 2296-2565. - STAMPA. - 8:(2021), pp. 620222.1-620222.9. [10.3389/fpubh.2020.620222]
Chiereghin A.; Zagari R.M.; Galli S.; Moroni A.; Gabrielli L.; Venturoli S.; Bon I.; Rossini G.; Saracino I.M.; Pavoni M.; Lafratta S.; Deni A.; Felici S.; Borghi M.; Guerra L.; Raumer L.; Lodi V.; Viale P.; Attard L.; Lazzarotto T.; Borgatti E.C.; Leone M.; Mancini R.; Petrisli E.; Turello G.; Gaibani P.; Vocale C.; Roncarati G.; Magnani S.; Fioro M.A.; Fava M.; Marzaduri A.; Di Felice G.; Caveduri F.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
fpubh-08-620222.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 493 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
493 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/855538
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 14
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 17
social impact