Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Head-to-head evaluation on diagnostic accuracies of six SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.
Tan, Shaun S; Saw, Sharon; Chew, Ka Lip; Huak, Chan Yiong; Khoo, Candy; Pajarillaga, Anastacia; Wang, Weixuan; Tambyah, Paul; Ong, Lizhen; Jureen, Roland; Sethi, Sunil K.
  • Tan SS; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore. Electronic address: shaun_sy_tan@nuhs.edu.sg.
  • Saw S; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Chew KL; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Huak CY; Biostatistics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Khoo C; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Pajarillaga A; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Wang W; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Tambyah P; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
  • Ong L; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Jureen R; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
  • Sethi SK; Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Pathology ; 52(7): 770-777, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1044336
ABSTRACT
In this study, we evaluated and compared six SARS-CoV-2 serology kits including the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, OCD Vitros OCD Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total antibody assay, Roche Elecsys Anti SARS-CoV-2 assay, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 Total assay, and cPass surrogate viral neutralising antibody assay. A total of 336 non-duplicated residual serum samples that were obtained from COVID-19 confirmed patients (n=173) on PCR and negative controls (n=163) obtained pre-December 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic were used for the study. These were concurrently analysed on the different immunoassay platforms and correlated with clinical characteristics. Our results showed all assays had specificity ranging from 99.3% to 100.0%. Overall sensitivity across all days of symptoms, in descending order were OCD (49.1%, 95% CI 41.8-56.5%), cPass (44.8%, 95% CI 37.5-52.3%), Roche (41.6%, 95% CI 34.5-49.0%), Siemens (39.9%, 95% CI 32.9-47.3%), Abbott (39.8%, 95% CI 32.9-47.3%) and Beckman (39.6%, 95% CI 32.5-47.3%). Testing after at least 14 days from symptom onset is required to achieve AUCs greater than 0.80. OCD and cPass performed the best in terms of sensitivity for >21 days symptoms with 93.3% (95% CI, 73.5-99.2%) and 96.7% (95% CI, 82.8-99.9%), respectively. Both also shared the greatest concordance, kappa 0.963 (95% CI 0.885-1.0), p<0.001, and had the lowest false negative rates. Serology results should be interpreted with caution in certain cases. False negatives were observed in a small number of individuals with COVID-19 on immunosuppressive therapy, pauci-symptomatic or who received antiretroviral therapy. In conclusion, all assays exhibited excellent specificity and total antibody assays with spike protein configurations generally outperformed nucleocapsid configurations and IgG assays in terms of diagnostic sensitivity.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Serological Testing / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Pathology Year: 2020 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: COVID-19 Serological Testing / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Pathology Year: 2020 Document Type: Article