ABSTRACT
Background: Serological tests are an indispensable tool to understand the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, particularly in areas where molecular diagnostics are limited. Poor assay performance may hinder the utility of these tests, including high rates of false-positivity previously reported in sub-Saharan Africa.Methods: From 312 Malian samples collected prior to 2020, we measured antibodies to the commonly tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens and four other betacoronaviruses by ELISA, and assessed functional cross-reactivity in a subset by SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay. We then evaluated the performance of a two-antigen test developed in the US, using SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and receptor-binding domain ELISA measurements. To optimize test performance, we compared single and two-antigen approaches using existing assay cutoffs and population-specific cutoffs for Malian control samples (positive and negative).Findings: Background reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 antigens was common in pre-pandemic samples compared to US controls (43·4% (135/311) for spike protein, 22·8% (71/312) for RBD, and 33·9% (79/233) for nucleocapsid protein). SARS-CoV-2 reactivity correlated weakly with other betacoronavirus reactivity, varied between Malian communities, and increased with age. No pre-pandemic samples demonstrated functional activity. Regardless of the cutoffs applied, specificity improved using a two-antigen approach. Test performance was optimal using a two-antigen assay with population-specific cutoffs derived from ROC curve analysis [Sensitivity: 73·9% (51·6-89·8), Specificity: 99·4% (97·7-99·9)].Interpretation: In the setting of high background reactivity, such as sub-Saharan Africa, SARS-CoV-2 serological assays need careful qualification is to characterize the epidemiology of disease, prevent unnecessary harm, and allocate resources for targeted control measures.Funding: This project was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as well as the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: All pre-pandemic samples were collected during NIH-sponsored studies that were approved by the Malian USTTB FMPOS human research ethics committee and the NIAID/NIH institutional review board.Convalescent PCR-confirmed COVID-19 US positive control samples (n=10) were provided by the Adventist Hospital, Maryland. De-identified residual clinical samples for non-human subject research were obtained in accordance with 45 CFR 46.Convalescent samples were collected as part of a Public Health surveillance activity in collaboration with the Malian Ministry of Health COVID-19 Coordination Unit and with the approval of the USTTB FMOS-FAPH ethics committee (No2020/114/CE/FMOS/FAPH).