Analysis of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for SARS-CoV-2 IgG using two commercial immunoassays.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) was approved by the FDA for use in severe cases of COVID-19 under an emergency Investigational New Drug (IND) protocol. Eligibility criteria for CCP donors includes documentation of evidence of COVID-19 either by viral RNA detection at the time of illness or positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG after recovery if diagnostic testing for COVID-19 was not performed at the time of illness. In addition to analysis of CCP, analysis of SARS-CoV-2 IgG provides information for possible past exposure and may support diagnosis when SARS-CoV-2 PCR is negative and clinical suspicion for COVID-19 is high. Furthermore, assays with high sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 IgG are critical for understanding community exposure rates to SARS-CoV-2. Currently, there are several assays that test for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a variety of methods, including point-of-care lateral flow-based devices, high throughput immunoassay analyzers, and manual methods such as ELISA. These assays target a number of SARS-CoV-2 antigens, including the nucleocapsid protein (N), full length spike protein (S), S1 subunit, or receptor binding domain (RBD) of the S protein. Given the heterogeneity among methods for, and antigenic targets used in SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays, it is necessary for careful evaluation of these assays prior to implementation for clinical use. We compared two assays that had received the CE mark of regulatory approval and that used either the N antigen or S1-RBD antigen as the target for analysis of a large set of CCP samples. Our data indicates that sensitivity and specificity vary between these assays and that more than one antigenic target may be required to improve the sensitivity and specificity of IgG detection to SARS-CoV-2.

Analytical and Clinical Evaluation of the Automated Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assay on the Roche cobas e602 Analyzer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the automated Elecsys anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody (Elecsys Ab) assay on the Roche cobas e602 analyzer. With the ongoing global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, widespread and routine serologic testing of SARS-CoV-2 remains a pressing need. To better understand its epidemiologic spread and to support policies aimed at curtailing further infections, reliable serologic testing is crucial for providing insight into the dynamics of the spread of COVID-19 on a population level. METHODS: The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in polymerase chain reaction-positive, confirmed COVID-19 patient samples was determined using the Elecsys Ab assay on the Roche cobas e602 analyzer. The precision and cross-reactivity of the Elecsys Ab assay were characterized and its performance was compared against the EuroImmun IgA/IgG antibody (EuroImmun Ab) assay. Calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were assessed. RESULTS: The Elecsys Ab assay demonstrated good precision, had no cross-reactivity with other viral samples, and showed 100% concordance with the EuroImmun Ab assay. Excellent clinical performance with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The Elecsys Ab assay is a precise and highly reliable automated platform for clinical detection of seropositivity in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Multi-Platform Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays for the Detection of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel beta-coronavirus that is responsible for the 2019 coronavirus pandemic. Acute infections should be diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based tests, but serology tests can demonstrate previous exposure to the virus. METHODS: We compared the performance of the Diazyme, Roche, and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 serology assays using 179 negative participants to determine negative percentage agreement (NPA) and in 60 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed positive patients to determine positive percentage agreement (PPA) at 3 different time frames following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. RESULTS: At ≥15 days, the PPA (95% CI) was 100 (86.3-100)% for the Diazyme IgM/IgG panel, 96.0 (79.7-99.9)% for the Roche total Ig assay, and 100 (86.3-100)% for the Abbott IgG assay. The NPA (95% CI) was 98.3 (95.2-99.7)% for the Diazyme IgM/IgG panel, 99.4 (96.9-100)% for the Roche total Ig assay, and 98.9 (96.0-99.9)% for the Abbott IgG assay. When the Roche total Ig assay was combined with either the Diazyme IgM/IgG panel or the Abbott IgG assay, the positive predictive value was 100% while the negative predictive value remained greater than 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrates that the Diazyme, Roche, and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 serology assays have similar clinical performances. We demonstrated a low false-positive rate across all 3 platforms and observed that false positives observed on the Roche platform are unique compared to those observed on the Diazyme or Abbott assays. Using multiple platforms in tandem increases the PPVs, which is important when screening populations with low disease prevalence.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

BACKGROUND: While molecular techniques remain the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, serological tests have the unique potential to ascertain how much of the population has been exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. There have been limited published studies to date documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: We compared the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG and Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays using 228 samples spanning patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, patients with compatible symptoms but negative PCR, pre-COVID specimens, and potential cross-reactives. RESULTS: Both assays detected antibodies in 18/19 samples collected at least one week after a positive PCR result. Neither method consistently detected antibodies in specimens collected within one week of a positive PCR result (sensitivity < 50%), but antibodies were detected by only Roche in four samples in this time frame. Using 139 pre-COVID and 35 PCR-negative samples, the Roche and DiaSorin assays demonstrated specificities of 100.0% and 98.9%, respectively. Neither assay demonstrated cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43), respiratory pathogens (adenovirus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus), or antibodies to other viruses (HIV, EBV, CMV, HBV, HCV, HAV). DISCUSSION: Overall, the qualitative interpretations afforded by the Roche and DiaSorin assays agreed for 97% of samples evaluated. Minor discrepancies in sensitivity and specificity were observed between methods, with the differences in specificity more clinically significant for our low-prevalence population. For the DiaSorin assay, all disagreements with the Roche assay occurred in samples with quantitative signals near the cut-off determining positivity.

Evaluation of an Electrochemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assay.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the performance of the Roche novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody (anti-SARS-CoV-2) assay. We provide an extensive evaluation of this fully automated assay on Cobas e801/e602 immunoassay analyzers. METHODS: We assessed the linearity, precision, and throughput of the Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay. Sensitivity was calculated from 349 SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive samples; specificity was determined from 715 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-naive samples. We examined cross-reactivity against other antibody positive samples [syphilis, rheumatoid factor (RF), antinuclear antibody (ANA), double-stranded DNA (ds-DNA), influenza, dengue, hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV)] and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 kinetics. RESULTS: The assay cut-off index (COI) was linear up to 90.8. The interassay precision was 2.9% for a negative control (COI = 0.1) and 5.1% for a positive control (COI = 3.0). Assay time is 18 min and results are available 1 min later; throughput for 300 samples was 76 min. Only 1 case positive for HBsAg tested falsely positive; specificity was 99.9%. The assay has a sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after PCR positivity (POS) and 100% at ≥21 days POS; 48.2% of cases had anti-SARS-CoV-2 within 6 days POS. In 11 patients in whom serum was available prior to a positive antibody signal (COI ≥1.0) the interval between the last negative and first positive COI (time to "seroconversion") on average is 3 days (range 1-6 days) and 4 more days (range 1-7) for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 to plateau. CONCLUSION: The Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay shows excellent performance with minimal cross-reactivity from other viral and confounding antibodies. Antibody development and seroconversion appears quite early.