Dataset Information

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance of recently launched commercial immunoassays in serum and plasma samples. METHODS:51 serum samples from 26 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after end of quarantine and 25 control patients were analyzed using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope to assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 20 matching pairs of serum and plasma samples were included to analyze comparability between different specimens. RESULTS:Overall, a diagnostic sensitivity of 92.3%, 96.2-100% and 100% with a respective diagnostic specificity of 100%, 100% and 84-86% for the immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope were determined. In total, 84-96% of samples were correctly classified as negative and 92.3-95.2% as positive. The level of concordance between plasma- and serum-based testing diverged between the assays (Epitope r2 = 0.97; Euroimmun r2 = 0.91; Roche r2 = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS:The immunoassays from Euroimmun and Roche revealed a higher specificity than the Epitope assay without a substantial drop of diagnostic sensitivity. Significant differences between plasma- and serum-based testing highlights the need for determination of appropriate cut-offs per specimen type. Hence, there is an urgent need for test harmonization and establishment of quality standards for an appropriate use of COVID-19 serological tests.

SUBMITTER: Haselmann V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7343640 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

Haselmann Verena V Kittel Maximilian M Gerhards Catharina C Thiaucourt Margot M Eichner Romy R Costina Victor V Neumaier Michael M

Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry 20200709

<h4>Background</h4>For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance ...[more]

PMID: 32652161

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic in 2020. Testing is crucial for mitigating public health and economic effects. Serology is considered key to population-level surveillance and potentially individual-level risk assessment. However, immunoassay performance has not been compared on large, identical sample sets. We aimed to investigate the performance of four high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays and a novel 384-well ELISA.MethodsWe did a head-to-head assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), SARS-CoV-2 Total assay (Siemens, Munich, Germany), and a novel 384-well ELISA (the Oxford immunoassay). We derived sensitivity and specificity from 976 pre-pandemic blood samples (collected between Sept 4, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016) and 536 blood samples from patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, collected at least 20 days post symptom onset (collected between Feb 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess assay thresholds.FindingsAt the manufacturers' thresholds, for the Abbott assay sensitivity was 92·7% (95% CI 90·2-94·8) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4-100%); for the DiaSorin assay sensitivity was 96·2% (94·2-97·7) and specificity was 98·9% (98·0-99·4); for the Oxford immunoassay sensitivity was 99·1% (97·8-99·7) and specificity was 99·0% (98·1-99·5); for the Roche assay sensitivity was 97·2% (95·4-98·4) and specificity was 99·8% (99·3-100); and for the Siemens assay sensitivity was 98·1% (96·6-99·1) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4-100%). All assays achieved a sensitivity of at least 98% with thresholds optimised to achieve a specificity of at least 98% on samples taken 30 days or more post symptom onset.InterpretationFour commercial, widely available assays and a scalable 384-well ELISA can be used for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing to achieve sensitivity and specificity of at least 98%. The Siemens assay and Oxford immunoassay achieved these metrics without further optimisation. This benchmark study in immunoassay assessment should enable refinements of testing strategies and the best use of serological testing resource to benefit individuals and population health.FundingPublic Health England and UK National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:Past severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is an important determinant of protection from reinfection and of postvaccine immune responses. Herein, we conducted a follow-up analysis of health care workers previously infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with the aim of evaluating different immunoassays for their capability in detecting the waning anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses and accuracy in documenting past SARS-CoV-2 infections. We evaluated serum antinucleocapsid antibody levels in convalescent individuals following a 1.5-year interval from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three different commercial immunoassays that qualitatively measure serum antibodies targeting the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein, namely, the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG, the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG, and the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2, were tested for comparison of detectability. A total of 38 individuals consented to participating in this follow-up analysis. From assay to assay, seropositivity rate at 18 months from infection varied from lowest at 42% to highest at 92%. The Roche Elecsys immunoassay, dependent on the dual-antigen antibody detection method and tuned for the detection of high avidity antibodies, was most capable of accurately documenting past SARS-CoV-2 infections. Different immunoassays showed variable capability of determining previous infection status under waning antibody concentrations. Immunoassays with lower detection limits are to be selected, and adjusted thresholds are to be considered in order to maximize the tests' performance. IMPORTANCE Past SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important determinant of protection from reinfection and of postvaccine immune responses. Our results show that different immunoassays, by design, harbor variable capability of tracking SARS-CoV-2 infection under waning antibody concentrations. With each recovered patient standing at a unique time point along the decline curve of antibodies, precise estimation of COVID-19 cumulative incidence remains a challenge. Since future surveillance studies will be targeting more than ever heterogenous cohorts, selecting the appropriate immunoassay is crucial in order to assure reliable decisions about an individual's previous infection status.

Dataset Information

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

Publications

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets