Cross-Institutional Evaluation of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG Immunoassay.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a cross-institutional approach to verify the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay and to document the kinetics of the serological response. METHODS: We conducted analytical performance evaluation studies using the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay on 5 Abbott ARCHITECT i2000 automated analyzers at 2 academic medical centers. RESULTS: Within-run and between-run coefficients of variance (CVs) for the antibody assay did not exceed 5.6% and 8.6%, respectively, for each institution. Quantitative and qualitative results agreed for lithium heparin plasma, EDTA-plasma and serum specimen types. Results for all SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive and -negative specimens were concordant among analyzers except for 1 specimen at 1 institution. Qualitative and quantitative agreement was observed for specimens exchanged between institutions. All patients had detectable antibodies by day 10 from symptom onset and maintained seropositivity throughout specimen procurement. CONCLUSIONS: The analytical performance characteristics of the Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay within and between 2 academic medical center clinical laboratories were acceptable for widespread clinical-laboratory use.

AutoPlate: Rapid Dose-Response Curve Analysis for Biological Assays.

The emergence of COVID-19 has emphasised that biological assay data must be analysed quickly to develop safe, effective and timely vaccines/therapeutics. For viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the primary way of measuring immune correlates of protection is through assays such as the pseudotype microneutralisation (pMN) assay, thanks to its safety and versatility. However, despite the presence of existing tools for data analysis such as PRISM and R the analysis of these assays remains cumbersome and time-consuming. We introduce an open-source R Shiny web application and R library (AutoPlate) to accelerate data analysis of dose-response curve immunoassays. Using example data from influenza studies, we show that AutoPlate improves on available analysis software in terms of ease of use, flexibility and speed. AutoPlate (https://philpalmer.shinyapps.io/AutoPlate/) is a tool for the use of laboratories and wider scientific community to accelerate the analysis of biological assays in the development of viral vaccines and therapeutics.

Analytical characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 EURM-017 reference material.

BACKGROUND: Current serological methods for SARS-CoV-2 lack adequate standardization to a universal standard reference material. Standardization will allow comparison of results across various lab-developed and commercial assays and publications. SARS-CoV-2 EURM-017 is human sera reference material containing antibodies directed against SARS-CoV-2 proteins, S1/S2 (full-length spike [S]), S1 receptor-binding domain (S1 RBD), S1, S2, and nucleocapsid (N) protein. The goal of this study was to characterize five antigen-specific serum fractions in EURM-017 for standardization of serology assays. METHODS: Five antigen-specific serum fractions were affinity purified, quantified, and PRNT50 titers compared. Standardization methods were established for two anti-S1 RBD (IgG and Total Ig) and one N protein assay. For the anti-S1 RBD assays, standardization involved determining assay index values for serial dilutions of S1-RBD anti-sera. Index values for the anti-S1 RBD IgG assay and PRNT50 titers were determined for 44 symptomatic COVID-19 patient sera. The index values were converted to EURM-017 ug/mL. RESULTS: Anti-sera protein content was as follows: S1 (17.7 µg/mL), S1 RBD (17.4 µg/mL), S1/S2 (full-length S) (34.1 µg/mL), S2 (29.7 µg/mL), and N protein (72.5 µg/mL). S1 anti-serum had the highest neutralization activity. A standardization method for S1 RBD anti-serum and an anti-S1 RBD IgG assay yielded the linear equation (y = 0.75x-0.10; y = index, x=µg/mL anti-serum). Patient sample index values for the S1-RBD IgG assay correlated well with PRNT50 titers (Pearson r = 0.84). Using the equation above, patient index values were converted to standardized µg/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of different lab-developed and commercial assays to EURM-017 antigen-specific anti-sera will allow comparison of results across studies globally due to traceability to a single standard reference material.

Comparative Evaluation of Phenotypic Synergy Tests versus RESIST-4 O.K.N.V. and NG Test Carba 5 Lateral Flow Immunoassays for the Detection and Differentiation of Carbapenemases in Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The spread of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) has dramatically impacted morbidity and mortality. COVID-19 pandemic has favored the selection of these microorganisms because of the excessive and prolonged use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and the outbreaks related to patient transfer between hospitals and inadequate personal protective equipment. Therefore, early CPE detection is considered essential for their control. We aimed to compare conventional phenotypic synergy tests and two lateral flow immunoassays for detecting carbapenemases in Enterobacterales and P. aeruginosa. We analyzed 100 carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli isolates, 80 Enterobacterales, and 20 P. aeruginosa (86 isolates producing KPC, NDM, OXA-48, IMP, and VIM carbapenemases and 14 non-carbapenemase-producing isolates). We performed a modified Hodge test, boronic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) synergy tests, and two lateral flow immunoassays: RESIST-4 O.K.N.V. (Coris Bioconcept) and NG Test Carba 5 (NG Biotech). In total, 76 KPC, seven VIM, one NDM, one OXA-48, and one isolate coproducing KPC + NDM enzymes were included. The concordance of different methods estimated by the Kappa index was 0.432 (standard error: 0.117), thus showing a high variability with the synergy tests with boronic acid and EDTA and reporting 16 false negatives that were detected by the two immunochromatographic methods. Co-production was only detected using immunoassays. Conventional phenotypic synergy tests with boronic acid and EDTA for detecting carbapenemases are suboptimal, and their routine use should be reconsidered. These tests depend on the degree of enzyme expression and the distance between disks. Lateral flow immunoassay tests are a rapid and cost-effective tool to detect and differentiate carbapenemases, improving clinical outcomes through targeted therapy and promoting infection prevention measures. IMPORTANCE Infections due to multidrug-resistant pathogens are a growing problem worldwide. The production of carbapenemases in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacterales cause a high impact on the mortality of infected patients. Therefore, it is of great importance to have methods that allow the early detection of these multi-resistant microorganisms, achieving the confirmation of the type of carbapenemase present, with high sensitivity and specificity, with the aim of improving epidemiological control, dissemination, the clinical course to through targeted antibiotic therapy and promoting infection control in hospitals.

Evaluation of the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Test Ag Card for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection by a local public health district with a rural population.

SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR, the gold standard for diagnostic testing, may not be readily available or logistically applicable for routine COVID-19 testing in many rural communities in the United States. In this validation study, we compared the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card with SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR in 214 participants who sought COVID-19 testing from a local public health district in Idaho, USA. The median age of participants was 35 and 82.7% were symptomatic. Thirty-seven participants (17.3%) had positive RT-PCR results. Results between the two tests were 94.4% concordant. The sensitivity of the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was 67.6% (95% CI: 50.2-81.9%), and the specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 97.9-100.0%). The positive predictive value (PPV) for the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was 100.0% (95% CI: 86.2-100.0%), and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 93.6% (95% CI: 89.1-96.6%). Although the sensitivity of BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card was lower than RT-PCR, rapid results and high specificity support its use for early detection of COVID-19, especially in settings where SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing is not readily available. Rapid antigen tests, such as the BinaxNOW™ COVID-19 Test Ag Card, may be a more convenient tool in quickly identifying and preventing COVID-19 transmission, especially in rural settings.

Analytical and clinical evaluation of a novel assay for measurement of interleukin 6 in human whole blood samples.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 assays are useful in early detection of infections and risk stratification of critically ill patients, so an assay with a short turnaround-time and near-patient use is preferred. This study evaluated the performance of a new interleukin 6 assay, Pylon IL-6 assay, and explored its potential use in near-patient settings. METHODS: We carried out imprecision, linearity and comparison studies using serum and plasma samples according to CLSI EP guidelines. The stability of whole blood samples during storage was assessed. Furthermore, whole blood samples from pediatric patients with suspected infection were measured to evaluate the assay's diagnostic performance. RESULTS: The within-run CVs and total CVs of Pylon IL-6 assay were determined as 1.8% and 3.0% at 159.3 pg/ml and 3.5% and 4.7% at 8009.9 pg/ml, respectively. The method showed linearity between 1.5 and 42,854 pg/ml. The results of serum samples measured by Pylon assays correlated to those measured by Roche assays, as well as to those of matched whole blood samples measured by Pylon assays. IL-6 in whole blood was found stable for ~8 h at room temperature. Pylon IL-6 results of whole blood samples from 179 pediatric patients with suspected infection showed an AUC of 0.842 in diagnosis of bacterial infection. The turnaround time of Pylon IL-6 assay was only 1 h when using whole blood samples. CONCLUSION: The new assay demonstrated performance comparable to those performed on clinical laboratory instruments and can be used in near-patient settings with whole blood to reduce turnaround times.

A plug-and-play platform of ratiometric bioluminescent sensors for homogeneous immunoassays.

Heterogeneous immunoassays such as ELISA have become indispensable in modern bioanalysis, yet translation into point-of-care assays is hindered by their dependence on external calibration and multiple washing and incubation steps. Here, we introduce RAPPID (Ratiometric Plug-and-Play Immunodiagnostics), a mix-and-measure homogeneous immunoassay platform that combines highly specific antibody-based detection with a ratiometric bioluminescent readout. The concept entails analyte-induced complementation of split NanoLuc luciferase fragments, photoconjugated to an antibody sandwich pair via protein G adapters. Introduction of a calibrator luciferase provides a robust ratiometric signal that allows direct in-sample calibration and quantitative measurements in complex media such as blood plasma. We developed RAPPID sensors that allow low-picomolar detection of several protein biomarkers, anti-drug antibodies, therapeutic antibodies, and both SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. With its easy-to-implement standardized workflow, RAPPID provides an attractive, fast, and low-cost alternative to traditional immunoassays, in an academic setting, in clinical laboratories, and for point-of-care applications.

"David vs. Goliath": A simple antigen detection test with potential to change diagnostic strategy for SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: As regard to all pandemics, the current COVID-19 pandemic, could also have been better managed with prudent use of preventive measures coupled with rapid diagnostic tools such as rapid antigen tests, but their efficacy is under question because of projected lower sensitivity as compared to Real Time Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction, which although considered gold standard has its own limitations. METHODOLOGY: A prospective, single centre study was carried out to evaluate the performance of Standard Q COVID-19 Ag, a rapid immuno-chromatographic assay for antigen detection, against TrueNat, a chip-based, point-of-care, portable, Real-Time PCR analyzer for diagnosis of COVID-19; on 467 nasal swab samples from suspected subjects at a fever clinic in North India in month of July 2020. RESULTS: Of the 467 specimens tested, TrueNat showed positive result in 29 (6.2%), majority of whom were asymptomatic (72.4%) while 4/29 (13.9%) had influenza like illness and 2/29 (6.8%) presented with severe acute respiratory illness. Compared to TrueNat, Rapid antigen test gave concordance for 26 samples, while for 2 samples the result was false positive; giving an overall sensitivity of 89.7% (95% CI = 72.6- 97.8) and a specificity of 99.5%, indicating strong agreement between two methods. CONCLUSION: Community prevalence plays an important role is choosing the laboratory test and result interpretation. Rapid antigen detection tests definitely have a big role to play, especially in resource limited setting, for early diagnosis as well as for source control to halt the spread.

A mass spectrometry-based targeted assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen from clinical specimens.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has overwhelmed health systems worldwide and highlighted limitations of diagnostic testing. Several types of diagnostic tests including RT-PCR-based assays and antigen detection by lateral flow assays, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, have been developed and deployed in a short time. METHODS: Here, we describe an immunoaffinity purification approach followed a by high resolution mass spectrometry-based targeted qualitative assay capable of detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral antigen from nasopharyngeal swab samples. Based on our discovery experiments using purified virus, recombinant viral protein and nasopharyngeal swab samples from COVID-19 positive patients, nucleocapsid protein was selected as a target antigen. We then developed an automated antibody capture-based workflow coupled to targeted high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) - parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) assay on an Orbitrap Exploris 480 mass spectrometer. An ensemble machine learning-based model for determining COVID-19 positive samples was developed using fragment ion intensities from the PRM data. FINDINGS: The optimized targeted assay, which was used to analyze 88 positive and 88 negative nasopharyngeal swab samples for validation, resulted in 98% (95% CI = 0.922-0.997) (86/88) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI = 0.958-1.000) (88/88) specificity using RT-PCR-based molecular testing as the reference method. INTERPRETATION: Our results demonstrate that direct detection of infectious agents from clinical samples by tandem mass spectrometry-based assays have potential to be deployed as diagnostic assays in clinical laboratories, which has hitherto been limited to analysis of pure microbial cultures. FUNDING: This study was supported by DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance Margdarshi Fellowship grant IA/M/15/1/502023 awarded to AP and the generosity of Eric and Wendy Schmidt.

Evaluation of Commercial Rapid Lateral Flow Tests, Alone or in Combination, for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing.

Antibody tests can be tools for detecting current or past severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 [coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)]) infections. Independent test evaluations are needed to document the performance with different sample sets. We evaluated six lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two laboratory-based tests (EUROIMMUN-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA and Abbott-Architect-SARS-CoV-2-IgG). We tested 210 plasma samples from 89 patients diagnosed with acute COVID-19. These samples were collected at different time points after the onset of symptoms. In addition, 80 convalescent plasma samples, and 168 pre-pandemic samples collected from adults in the United States and in Africa were tested. LFA performance varied widely, and some tests with high sensitivity had low specificity. LFA sensitivities were low (18.8-40.6%) for samples collected 0 to 3 days after symptom onset, and were greater (80.3-96.4%) for samples collected > 14 days after symptom onset. These results are similar to those obtained by ELISA (15.6% and 89.1%) and chemiluminescent microparticle assay (21.4% and 93.1%). The range of test specificity was between 82.7% and 97%. The combined use of two LFAs can increase specificity to more than 99% without a major loss of sensitivity. Because of suboptimal sensitivity with early COVID-19 samples and background reactivity with some pre-pandemic samples, none of the evaluated tests alone is reliable enough for definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. However, antibody testing may be useful for assessing the status of the epidemic or vaccination campaign. Some of the LFAs had sensitivities and specificities that were comparable to those of more expensive laboratory tests, and these may be useful for seroprevalence surveys in resource-limited settings.

Tergitol-15-S-9 inactivates SARS-CoV-2 and boosts immunoassay signals.

Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 virus is necessary to mitigate risk but may interfere with diagnostic assay performance. We examined the effect of heat inactivation on a prototype SARS-CoV-2 antigen immunoassay run on the ARCHITECT automated analyzer. Recombinant full-length SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and virus lysate detection was reduced by 66 and 31%, respectively. Several nonionic detergents were assessed as inactivation alternatives based on infectivity in cultured Vero CCL81 cells. Incubation of SARS-CoV-2 in 0.1% Tergitol 15-S-9 for 10 min significantly reduced infectivity and increased the immunoassay signal for cultured lysate and patient specimens. Tergitol 15-S-9 can inactivate SARS-CoV-2 while preserving epitopes on the nucleocapsid protein for enhanced detection by immunoassay antibodies.

Current status of the lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs.

Early detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are priorities during the pandemic. Symptomatic and suspected asymptomatic individuals should be tested for COVID-19 to confirm infection and to be excluded from social interactions. As molecular testing capacity is overloaded during the pandemic, rapid antigen tests, such as lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), can be a useful tool as they allow greater test availability and obtain results in a very short time. This short review aims to present the analytical properties of LFIAs in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs. Lateral flow immunoassay is a method that combines thin-layer chromatography and indirect immunochemical sandwich method and allows the detection of a specific SARS-CoV-2 antigen in nasopharyngeal swabs. Swab specimens should be adequately collected and tested as soon as possible. Users should pay attention to quality control and possible interferences. Antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 show high sensitivity and specificity in cases with high viral loads, and should be used up to five days after the onset of the first symptoms of COVID-19. False positive results may be obtained when screening large populations with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infection, while false negative results may happen due to improper specimen collection or insufficient amount of antigen in the specimen. So as to achieve reliable results, a diagnostic accuracy study of a specific rapid antigen test should be performed.

Performance evaluation of the Simtomax® CoronaCheck rapid diagnostic test.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Simtomax® CoronaCheck, a serology rapid diagnostic test (RDT) for the detection of IgG and IgM against SARS-CoV-2. 48 plasma samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 based on RT-PCR and 98 negative control samples were studied. Diagnostic performance of the IgG/IgM RDT was assessed against RT-PCR and the electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total Ig. Overall, the RDT sensitivity was 92 % (95 % confidence interval [95 %CI]: 79-97), specificity 97 % (95 % CI: 91-99 %), PPV 94 % (95 % CI: 81-98) and the NPV 96 % (95 % CI: 89-99). When considering only samples collected ≥ 15 days post-symptoms (DPS), the sensitivity increased to 98 % (95 %CI: 86-100) and the specificity was 97 % (95 % CI: 91-99 %). Two samples with 180 DPS were still positive for IgG. Globally, this IgG/IgM RDT displayed a high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 IgG/IgM detection in plasma samples in high COVID-19 prevalence settings. It could be effectively used, in absence of facilities for routine diagnostic serology, for samples with a DPS between 15 and 180 days.

IFCC interim guidelines on rapid point-of-care antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.

With an almost unremittent progression of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections all around the world, there is a compelling need to introduce rapid, reliable, and high-throughput testing to allow appropriate clinical management and/or timely isolation of infected individuals. Although nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) remains the gold standard for detecting and theoretically quantifying SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in various specimen types, antigen assays may be considered a suitable alternative, under specific circumstances. Rapid antigen tests are meant to detect viral antigen proteins in biological specimens (e.g. nasal, nasopharyngeal, saliva), to indicate current SARS-CoV-2 infection. The available assay methodology includes rapid chromatographic immunoassays, used at the point-of-care, which carries some advantages and drawbacks compared to more conventional, instrumentation-based, laboratory immunoassays. Therefore, this document by the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Taskforce on COVID-19 aims to summarize available data on the performance of currently available SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid detection tests (Ag-RDTs), providing interim guidance on clinical indications and target populations, assay selection, and evaluation, test interpretation and limitations, as well as on pre-analytical considerations. This document is hence mainly aimed to assist laboratory and regulated health professionals in selecting, validating, and implementing regulatory approved Ag-RDTs.

Stringent thresholds in SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays lead to under-detection of mild infections.

BACKGROUND: Thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays have typically been determined using samples from symptomatic, often hospitalised, patients. In this setting the sensitivity and specificity of the best performing assays can both exceed 98%. However, antibody assay performance following mild infection is less clear. METHODS: We assessed quantitative IgG responses in a cohort of healthcare workers in Oxford, UK, with a high pre-test probability of Covid-19, in particular the 991/11,475(8.6%) who reported loss of smell/taste. We use anosmia/ageusia and other risk factors as probes for Covid-19 infection potentially undiagnosed by immunoassays by investigating their relationship with antibody readings either side of assay thresholds. RESULTS: The proportion of healthcare workers reporting anosmia/ageusia increased at antibody readings below diagnostic thresholds using an in-house ELISA (n = 9324) and the Abbott Architect chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA; n = 11,324): 426/906 (47%) reported anosmia/ageusia with a positive ELISA, 59/449 (13.1%) with high-negative and 326/7969 (4.1%) with low-negative readings. Similarly, by CMIA, 518/1093 (47.4%) with a positive result reported anosmia/ageusia, 106/686 (15.5%) with a high-negative and 358/9563 (3.7%) with a low-negative result. Adjusting for the proportion of staff reporting anosmia/ageusia suggests the sensitivity of both assays in mild infection is lower than previously reported: Oxford ELISA 89.8% (95%CI 86.6-92.8%) and Abbott CMIA 79.3% (75.9-82.7%). CONCLUSION: Following mild SARS-CoV-2 infection 10-30% of individuals may have negative immunoassay results. While lowered diagnostic thresholds may result in unacceptable specificity, our findings have implications for epidemiological analyses and result interpretation in individuals with a high pre-test probability. Samples from mild PCR-confirmed infections should be included in SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay evaluations.

Validation of COVID-19 serologic tests and large scale screening of asymptomatic healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an important element in the fight to slow the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to validate two serologic tests for total (IgM, IgG, IgA) SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, (i) the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibody assay for the Vitros 5600 analyzers and (ii) a manual laboratory developed ELISA (FDA EUA pending), for use in parallel orthogonal testing of asymptomatic healthcare workers and affiliates of the University of Maryland Medical System. DESIGN AND METHODS: Validation and verification of the two tests was performed using samples from hospitalized patients that were found to be PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2, samples pre-COVID-19, and samples from individuals with current/previous infections with other viruses. Healthcare workers and affiliates from across the University of Maryland Health System were provided testing free of charge and their results were reported as reactive or non-reactive if the two tests were concordance, or indeterminate if the results were discordant. RESULTS: Validation testing found the Ortho Vitros test to be 100% (73/73) sensitive, and 99.3% (152/153) specific, while the UMMC ELISA was found to be 97.6% (204/209) sensitive and 100% (288/288) specific. Real world testing among 8399 healthcare workers found that 2.9% (247/8399) of healthcare workers were positive for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by both tests. An indeterminate rate of 1.1% (91/8399), in which one test reported reactive results, and one as non-reactive was also seen. CONCLUSIONS: Parallel orthogonal testing improves the positive and negative predictive value of serologic testing in populations with low prevalence. The use of an indeterminate result from parallel orthogonal testing allows for the follow-up and re-testing, which helps resolve discrepancies between assays.

Performance characteristics of five immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2: a head-to-head benchmark comparison.

BACKGROUND: Severe 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. METHODS: We 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. FINDINGS: At 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. INTERPRETATION: Four 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. FUNDING: Public Health England and UK National Institute for Health Research.