A comparative review of immunoassays for COVID-19 detection. (3rd June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mohit, Elham; Rostami, Zahra; Vahidi, Hossein
• Is Part Of: Expert review of clinical immunology. Volume 17:Number 6(2021)
• Page Start: 573
• Page End: 599
• Publication Date: 2021-06-03
• Subjects: COVID-19 -- SARS-CoV-2 -- serology -- ELISA -- CLIA -- LFIA; Clinical immunology -- Periodicals; 616.079
• DOI: 10.1080/1744666X.2021.1908886
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1744-666X

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Introduction : The gold standard for diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which is expensive, time-consuming and may result in false-negative results. Serological tests can be employed for RT-PCR negative patients, contact tracing, determining the probability of protection against re-infection, and seroepidemiological studies. Areas covered : The main methodologies of serology-based tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs) and lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) were reviewed and their diagnostic performances were compared. Herein, a literature review on the databases of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020 based on the main serological methods for COVID-19 detection with the focus on comparative experiments was performed. The review was updated on December 31, 2020. Expert opinion : Serology testing could be considered as a part of diagnostic panel two-week post symptom onset. Higher sensitivity for serology-based tests could be achieved by determining combined IgG/IgM titers. Furthermore, higher sensitive serological test detecting neutralization antibody could be developed by targeting spike (S) antigen. It was also demonstrated that the sensitivity of ELISA/CLIA-based methods are higher than LFIA devices.