ABSTRACT
BackgroundSero-surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial to monitoring levels of population exposure and informing public health responses, but may be influenced by variability in performance between available assays. MethodsFive commercial immunoassays and a neutralising activity assay were used to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in routine primary care and paediatric samples collected during the first wave of the pandemic in NHS Lothian, Scotland as part of ongoing surveillance efforts. For each assay, sensitivity and specificity was calculated relative to consensus results and neutralising activity. Quantitative correlation was performed between serological and neutralising titres. ResultsSeroprevalence ranged from 3.4-7.3 % in primary care patients and 3-5.9 % in paediatric patients according to different immunoassays. Neutralising activity was detectable in 2.8 % and 1.3 % respectively. Relative assay performance changed depending on comparison to immunoassay consensus versus neutralising activity and qualititative versus quantitative agreement. Cross-reactivity with endemic seasonal coronaviruses was confirmed by neutralising assay in false positives for one immunoassay. Presence of false positives for another assay was found specifically in paediatric but not adult samples. ConclusionsFive serological assays show variable accuracy when applied to the general population, impacting seroprevalence estimates. Assay performance may also vary in detection of protective neutralising antibody levels. These aspects should be considered in assay selection and interpretation in epidemiological studies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) is an accurate time-saving method of reading cervical ThinPrep slides in screening programs. As anal and cervical cytology are morphologically similar, TIS can potentially be used for anal cytology. We assessed the performance of TIS on anal ThinPrep slides from homosexual men in a natural history study of human papillomavirus-related anal abnormalities. METHODS: Four hundred nineteen anal cytology slides were processed by TIS and classified by a cytologist as either No further review (slide archived) or Manual review (slide requiring full manual screen). The results were compared with the original manual screening report for all slides and specifically for those screening episodes accompanied by a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) on concurrent biopsy. RESULTS: One hundred seventy six of 419 (42.0%) slides were classified as No further review, with a trend of decreasing proportions as the degree of severity of the cytological abnormality increased. Thirteen (27.7%) slides with an original unsatisfactory report were classified as No further review. Eighty two (92.1%) of those with biopsy HSIL and cytological abnormality were classified for Manual review, including all 45 (100%) with cytological HSIL. CONCLUSION: The cervical algorithm of TIS performed best on anal samples when HSIL was present both cytologically and histologically. The 27.7% unsatisfactory slides classified as No further review may indicate need for use of different criteria from cervical cytology. Because of the high prevalence of abnormalities, and hence the large proportion of slides needing manual review, the cytologist time-saving would compare unfavorably with use of TIS in cervical screening.
