Next Article in Journal
Optical Diagnostics of the Maxillary Sinuses by Digital Diaphanoscopy Technology
Next Article in Special Issue
COVID-19 Point-of-Care Diagnostics That Satisfy Global Target Product Profiles
Previous Article in Journal
Multimodal Diagnostics of Microrheologic Alterations in Blood of Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetic Patients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nucleic Acid-Based Diagnostic Tests for the Detection SARS-CoV-2: An Update
Article

Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies

1
Institute for Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
2
Institute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock, 18057 Rostock, Germany
3
Interdisciplinary Emergency Department, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
4
Institute for Clinical Chemistry, University Medical Center Göttingen, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
5
Department of Microbiology and Hospital Hygiene, Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg, 20359 Hamburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diagnostics 2021, 11(1), 78; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010078
Received: 21 December 2020 / Revised: 4 January 2021 / Accepted: 4 January 2021 / Published: 6 January 2021
Serological assays can contribute to the estimation of population proportions with previous immunologically relevant contact with the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. In this study, we compared five commercially available diagnostic assays for the diagnostic identification of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Depending on the assessed immunoglobulin subclass, recorded sensitivity ranged from 17.0% to 81.9% with best results for immunoglobulin G. Specificity with blood donor sera ranged from 90.2% to 100%, with sera from EBV patients it ranged from 84.3% to 100%. Agreement from fair to nearly perfect was recorded depending on the immunoglobulin class between the assays, the with best results being found for immunoglobulin G. Only for this immunoglobulin class was the association between later sample acquisition times (about three weeks after first positive PCR results) and positive serological results in COVID-19 patients confirmed. In conclusion, acceptable and comparable reliability for the assessed immunoglobulin G-specific assays could be shown, while there is still room for improvement regarding the reliability of the assays targeting the other immunoglobulin classes. View Full-Text
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; serology; test comparison; surveillance SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; serology; test comparison; surveillance
MDPI and ACS Style

Dörschug, A.; Schwanbeck, J.; Hahn, A.; Hillebrecht, A.; Blaschke, S.; Mese, K.; Groß, U.; Dierks, S.; Frickmann, H.; Zautner, A.E. Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010078

AMA Style

Dörschug A, Schwanbeck J, Hahn A, Hillebrecht A, Blaschke S, Mese K, Groß U, Dierks S, Frickmann H, Zautner AE. Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies. Diagnostics. 2021; 11(1):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010078

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dörschug, Anja, Julian Schwanbeck, Andreas Hahn, Anke Hillebrecht, Sabine Blaschke, Kemal Mese, Uwe Groß, Sascha Dierks, Hagen Frickmann, and Andreas E. Zautner. 2021. "Comparison of Five Serological Assays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies" Diagnostics 11, no. 1: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010078

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop