• Alix T Coste, Katia Jaton, Matthaios Papadimitriou-Olivgeris, Gilbert Greub, and Antony Croxatto.
• Institute of Microbiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. Electronic address: alix.coste@chuv.ch.
• J. Clin. Virol. 2021 Jan 1; 134: 104690.

BackgroundThese 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 available in April 2020 in Switzerland.MethodsIn 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 viruses.ResultsIn the preliminary phase, among eight IgG/pan-Ig ELISA or CLIA/ECLIA tests, five 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 test showed particular cross-reaction. We observed an important heterogeneity in the development of the antibody response.ConclusionsThe majority of the evaluated tests exhibited high performances of IgG/pan-Ig sensitivity and specificity to detect the serological response of moderately to critically ill hospitalized patients. The IgM and IgA tests showed mostly insufficient performances with no added value for the early diagnostic on the cohort tested in this study.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

34 keywords...

hide…