Abstract:BACKGROUND: Serological tests are a powerful tool in the monitoring of infectious diseases and the detection of host immunity. However, manufacturers often provide diagnostic accuracy data generated through biased studies, and the performance in clinical practice is essentially unclear.OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various serological testing strategies for (a) identification of patients with previous coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and (b) prediction of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings.METHODS: We prospectively included 2573 consecutive health-care workers and 1085 inpatients with suspected or possible previous COVID-19 at a Swiss University Hospital. Various serological immunoassays based on different analytical techniques (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, ELISA; chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA; electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, ECLIA; and lateral flow immunoassay, LFI), epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 (nucleocapsid, N; receptor-binding domain, RBD; extended RBD, RBD+; S1 or S2 domain of the spike [S] protein, S1/S2), and antibody subtypes (IgG, pan-Ig) were conducted. A positive real-time PCR test from a nasopharyngeal swab was defined as previous COVID-19. Neutralization assays with live SARS-CoV-2 were performed in a subgroup of patients to assess neutralization activity (n = 201).RESULTS: The sensitivity to detect patients with previous COVID-19 was ≥85% in anti-N ECLIA (86.8%) and anti-S1 ELISA (86.2%). Sensitivity was 84.7% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 84.0% in anti-RBD+LFI, 81.0% in anti-N CLIA, 79.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 65.6% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was 98.4% in anti-N ECLIA, 98.3% in anti-N CLIA, 98.2% in anti-S1 ELISA, 97.7% in anti-N ELISA, 97.6% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 97.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 96.1% in anti-RBD+LFI. The sensitivity to detect neutralizing antibodies was ≥85% in anti-S1 ELISA (92.7%), anti-N ECLIA (91.7%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (90.3%), anti-RBD+LFI (87.9%), and anti-RBD ELISA (85.8%). Sensitivity was 84.1% in anti-N CLIA and 66.2% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was ≥97% in anti-N CLIA (100%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (97.7%), and anti-RBD+LFI (97.9%). Specificity was 95.9% in anti-RBD ELISA, 93.0% in anti-N ECLIA, 92% in anti-S1 ELISA, and 65.3% in anti-N ELISA. Diagnostic accuracy measures were consistent among subgroups.CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied remarkably in clinical practice, and the sensitivity to identify patients with previous COVID-19 deviated substantially from the manufacturer's specifications. The data presented here should be considered when using such tests to estimate the infection burden within a specific population and determine the likelihood of protection against re-infection.

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays

Examination of SARS-CoV-2 serological test results from multiple commercial and laboratory platforms with an in-house serum panel

Evaluation of Serological SARS-CoV-2 Lateral Flow Assays for Rapid Point of Care Testing

Evaluation of Serological Tests for SARS-CoV-2: Implications for Serology Testing in a Low-Prevalence Setting

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

SARS-CoV-2 serology: Validation of high-throughput chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) platforms and a field study in British Columbia

Comparative evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests shows significant variability in performance across different years of infection and between the tests

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech)

An evaluation of COVID-19 serological assays informs future diagnostics and exposure assessment

Clinical Utility of a Highly Sensitive Lateral Flow Immunoassay as determined by Titer Analysis for the Detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies at the Point-of-Care

Serological testing for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in clinical practice: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study

Development and multicenter performance evaluation of fully automated SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG immunoassays

A preliminary study on analytical performance of serological assay for SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and application in clinical practice

Evaluation of serological tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: implementation in assessing post vaccination status

In Search of the SARS-CoV-2 Protection Correlate: Head-to-Head Comparison of Two Quantitative S1 Assays in Pre-characterized Oligo-/Asymptomatic Patients

Evaluation of five immunoassays and one lateral flow immunochromatography for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detection

Clinical Performance of SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM Tests Using an Automated Chemiluminescent Assay

Performance Analysis of Serodiagnostic Tests to Characterize the Incline and Decline of the Individual Humoral Immune Response in COVID-19 Patients: Impact on Diagnostic Management

Evaluation of an Electrochemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assay

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients: the perspective application of serological tests in clinical practice

Clinical utility of targeted SARS-CoV-2 serology testing to aid the diagnosis and management of suspected missed, late or post-COVID-19 infection syndromes: Results from a pilot service implemented during the first pandemic wave