Abstract
Background These last months, dozens of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests have become available with varying performances. A major effort was completed to compare 17 serological tests.
Methods In a preliminary phase, we compared 17 IgG, IgM, IgA and pan Ig serological tests including ELISA, LFA, CLIA and ECLIA on a panel of 182 sera, comprising 113 sera from hospitalized patients with a positive RT-PCR, and 69 sampled before 1st November 2019, expected to give a positive and negative results, respectively. In a second phase, the five best performing and most available tests were further evaluated on a total of 582 sera (178 and 404 expected positive and negative, respectively), allowing the assessment of 20 possible cross-reactions with other virus.
Results In the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, four had a sensitivity and specificity above 90% and 98% respectively, and on six IgM/IgA tests, only one was acceptable. Only one LFA test on three showed good performances for both IgG and IgM. For all the tests IgM and IgG aroused concomitantly. In the second phase, no tests showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response, and that anti-nucleocapside (anti-N) antibodies appeared earlier than the anti-spike (anti-S) proteins.
Conclusions The identified SARS-CoV-2 serology tests may be used for the diagnostic of CoviD-19 for negative RT-PCR patients presenting severe to mild suggestive symptoms or particular clinical presentation. Detection of both anti-N and anti-S could be complementary to increase the sensitivity of the analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was necessary to write this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was evaluated by our Ethics Committee (CER-VD) and they judged that it did not deserve a specific approval being only a quality assessment of diagnostic tests.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are available on demands
