Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Performance of 4 Automated SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assay Platforms in a Large Cohort Including Susceptible COVID-19-Negative and COVID-19-Positive Patients.
Ward, Matthew D; Mullins, Kristin E; Pickett, Elizabeth; Merrill, VeRonika; Ruiz, Mark; Rebuck, Heather; Duh, Show-Hong; Christenson, Robert H.
  • Ward MD; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Mullins KE; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Pickett E; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Merrill V; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Ruiz M; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Rebuck H; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Duh SH; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Christenson RH; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Appl Lab Med ; 6(4): 942-952, 2021 07 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127352
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological responses may have a vital role in controlling the spread of the disease. However, the comparative performance of automated serological assays has not been determined in susceptible patients with significant comorbidities.

METHODS:

In this study, we used large numbers of samples from patients who were negative (n = 2030) or positive (n = 112) for COVID-19 to compare the performance of 4 serological assay platforms Siemens Healthineers Atellica IM Analyzer, Siemens Healthineers Dimension EXL Systems, Abbott ARCHITECT, and Roche cobas.

RESULTS:

All 4 serology assay platforms exhibited comparable negative percentage of agreement with negative COVID-19 status ranging from 99.2% to 99.7% and positive percentage of agreement from 84.8% to 87.5% with positive real-time reverse transcriptase PCR results. Of the 2142 total samples, only 38 samples (1.8%) yielded discordant results on one or more platforms. However, only 1.1% (23/2030) of results from the COVID-19-negative cohort were discordant. whereas discordance was 10-fold higher for the COVID-19-positive cohort, at 11.3% (15/112). Of the total 38 discordant results, 34 were discordant on only one platform.

CONCLUSIONS:

Serology assay performance was comparable across the 4 platforms assessed in a large population of patients who were COVID-19 negative with relevant comorbidities. The pattern of discordance shows that samples were discordant on a single assay platform, and the discordance rate was 10-fold higher in the population that was COVID-19 positive.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Biological Assay / COVID-19 Serological Testing / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Aged / Female / Humans / Male Country/Region as subject: North America Language: English Journal: J Appl Lab Med Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Jalm

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Biological Assay / COVID-19 Serological Testing / SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study Limits: Aged / Female / Humans / Male Country/Region as subject: North America Language: English Journal: J Appl Lab Med Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Jalm