Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.
Merrill, Anna E; Jackson, J Brooks; Ehlers, Alexandra; Voss, Dena; Krasowski, Matthew D.
  • Merrill AE; Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
  • Jackson JB; Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
  • Ehlers A; Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
  • Voss D; Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
  • Krasowski MD; Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA.
J Appl Lab Med ; 5(6): 1351-1357, 2020 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-676460
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pneumonia, Viral / Serologic Tests / Coronavirus Infections / Clinical Laboratory Techniques / Betacoronavirus / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Randomized controlled trials Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Appl Lab Med Year: 2020 Document Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Pneumonia, Viral / Serologic Tests / Coronavirus Infections / Clinical Laboratory Techniques / Betacoronavirus / Antibodies, Viral Type of study: Diagnostic study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Randomized controlled trials Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J Appl Lab Med Year: 2020 Document Type: Article