Dataset Information

Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19. METHODS:In this unmatched (1:2) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 326 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay. RESULTS:COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.990 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.983-0.996) and 0.978 (95%CI: 0.967-0.989), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.01). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 2.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 99-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 96-100). A 0.8 cut-off displayed a 94% sensitivity (95%CI: 88-97) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 95-99). Substituting the upper threshold for the manufacturer's, improved assay performance, leaving 8.9% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.8-2.5. CONCLUSIONS:The Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.

SUBMITTER: Meyer B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7320699 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay.

Meyer B B Torriani G G Yerly S S Mazza L L Calame A A Arm-Vernez I I Zimmer G G Agoritsas T T Stirnemann J J Spechbach H H Guessous I I Stringhini S S Pugin J J Roux-Lombard P P Fontao L L Siegrist C-A CA Eckerle I I Vuilleumier N N Kaiser L L

Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 20200627 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>In this unmatched (1:2) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 326 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant c ...[more]

PMID: 32603801

Similar Datasets

Project description:Deterrence of synthetic cathinone abuse is hampered by the lack of a high-throughput immunoassay screen. The Randox Drugs of Abuse V (DOA-V) Biochip Array Technology contains two synthetic cathinone antibodies: Bath Salt I (BSI) targets mephedrone/methcathinone and Bath Salt II (BSII) targets 3',4'-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV)/3',4'-methylenedioxy-?-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (MDPBP). We evaluated DOA-V synthetic cathinones performance and conducted a full validation on the original assay with calibrators reconstituted in water, and the new assay with calibrators prepared in lyophilized urine; both utilized the same antibodies and were run on the fully automated Evidence® Analyzer. We screened 20 017 authentic military urine specimens and confirmed positives by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) for 28 synthetic cathinones. Limits of detection (LOD) for the original and new assays were 0.35 and 0.18 (BSI), and 8.5 and 9.2 µg/L (BSII), respectively. Linearity was acceptable (R(2) ?>0.98); however, a large negative bias was observed with in-house prepared calibrators. Intra-assay imprecision was <20% BSI-II, while inter-assay imprecision was 18-42% BSI and <22% BSII. Precision was acceptable for Randox controls. Cross-reactivities of many additional synthetic cathinones were determined. Authentic drug-free negative urine pH <4 produced false positive results for BSI (6.3 µg/L) and BSII (473 µg/L). Oxidizing agents reduced BSI and increased BSII results. Sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency of 100%, 52.1%, and 53.0% were obtained at manufacturer's proposed cut-offs (BSI 5 µg/L, BSII 30 µg/L). Performance improved if cut-off concentrations increased (BSI 7.5 µg/L, BSII 40 µg/L); however, there were limited confirmed positive specimens. Currently, this is the first and only fully validated immunoassay for preliminary detection of synthetic cathinones in urine. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Dataset Information

Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay.

Publications

Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets