Analytical and clinical performances of a SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG assay: comparison with neutralization titers.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2 serology presents an important role in several aspects of COVID-19 pandemic. Immunoassays performances have to be accurately evaluated and correlated with neutralizing antibodies. We investigated the analytical and clinical performances of a SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG assay, automated on a high throughput platform, and the correlation of the antibodies (Ab) levels with the plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT50) Ab titers. METHODS: A series of 546 samples were evaluated by SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG assay (Snibe diagnostics), including 171 negative and 168 positive SARS-CoV-2 subjects and a further group of 207 subjects of the COVID-19 family clusters follow-up cohort. RESULTS: Assay imprecision ranged from 3.98 to 12.18% being satisfactory at low and medium levels; linearity was excellent in all the measurement range. Considering specimens collected after 14 days post symptoms onset, overall sensitivity and specificity were 99.0 and 92.5%, respectively. A total of 281 leftover samples results of the PRNT50 test were available. An elevated correlation was obtained between the SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG assay and the PRNT50 titer at univariate (ρ=0.689) and multivariate (ρ=0.712) analyses. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG assay shows satisfactory analytical and clinical performances, and a strong correlation with sera neutralizing activity.

Analytical and clinical performances of five immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in comparison with neutralization activity.

BACKGROUND: Reliable high-throughput serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are urgently needed for the effective containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it is of crucial importance to understand the strength and duration of immunity after infection, and to make informed decisions concerning the activation or discontinuation of physical distancing restrictions. METHODS: In 184 serum samples from 130 COVID-19 patients and 54 SARS-CoV-2 negative subjects, the analytical and clinical performances of four commercially available chemiluminescent assays (Abbott SARS-Cov-2 IgG, Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2, Ortho SARS-CoV-2 total and IgG) and one enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Diesse ENZY-WELL SARS-CoV-2 IgG) were evaluated and compared with the neutralization activity achieved using the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). FINDINGS: Precision results ranged from 0.9% to 11.8% for all assays. Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated linearity of results at concentrations within the cut-off value. Overall, sensitivity ranged from 78.5 to 87.7%, and specificity, from 97.6 to 100%. On limiting the analysis to samples collected 12 days after onset of symptoms, the sensitivity of all assays increased, the highest value (95.2%) being obtained with VITRO Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total and Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG. The strongest PRNT50 correlation with antibody levels was obtained with ENZY-Well SARS-CoV-2 IgG (R2adj = 0.569). INTERPRETATION: The results confirmed that all immunoassays had an excellent specificity, whereas sensitivity varied across immunoassays, depending strongly on the time interval between symptoms onset and sample collection. Further studies should be conducted to achieve a stronger correlation between antibody measurement and PRNT50 in order to obtain useful information for providing a better management of COVID-19 patients, effective passive antibody therapy, and developing a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. FUNDING: None.

Diagnostic performances and thresholds: The key to harmonization in serological SARS-CoV-2 assays?

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) specific antibody (Ab) assay performances is of the utmost importance in establishing and monitoring virus spread in the community. In this study focusing on IgG antibodies, we compare reliability of three chemiluminescent (CLIA) and two enzyme linked immunosorbent (ELISA) assays. METHODS: Sera from a total of 271 subjects, including 64 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients were tested for specific Ab using Maglumi (Snibe), Liaison (Diasorin), iFlash (Yhlo), Euroimmun (Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG) and Wantai (Wantai Biological Pharmacy) assays. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios were evaluated using manufacturers' and optimized thresholds. RESULTS: Optimized thresholds (Maglumi 2 kAU/L, Liaison 6.2 kAU/L and iFlash 15.0 kAU/L) allowed us to achieve a negative likelihood ratio and an accuracy of: 0.06 and 93.5% for Maglumi; 0.03 and 93.1% for Liaison; 0.03 and 91% for iFlash. Diagnostic sensitivities and specificities were above 93.8% and 85.9%, respectively for all CLIA assays. Overall agreement was 90.3% (Cohen's kappa = 0.805 and SE = 0.041) for CLIA, and 98.4% (Cohen's kappa = 0.962 and SE = 0.126) for ELISA. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained indicate that, for CLIA assays, it might be possible to define thresholds that improve the negative likelihood ratio. Thus, a negative test result enables the identification of subjects at risk of being infected, who should then be closely monitored over time with a view to preventing further viral spread. Redefined thresholds, in addition, improved the overall inter-assay agreement, paving the way to a better harmonization of serologic tests.