Comparative Clinical Evaluation of the Roche Elecsys and Abbott Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Serology Assays for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

CONTEXT.­: The use of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic tests detects antibodies in the host, contributing to the identification of individuals who have been exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE.­: To critically evaluate 2 commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serology tests. DESIGN.­: A total of 333 unique, nonduplicated serum samples obtained from COVID-19 patients (n = 170) and negative controls (n = 163) obtained before December 2019 were used in the study. Samples were tested on the Roche E411 and Abbott Architect i4000SR platforms, and results were correlated to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results and clinical symptoms. RESULTS.­: There was a strong level of agreement in the qualitative results between both assays, with a Cohen κ value of .840, P < .001. The specificity for both Roche and Abbott were excellent at 100%. Roche exhibited marginally better performance in the 21 days or more group with a sensitivity of 90.6% (95% CI, 75.8%-96.8%) versus an Abbott sensitivity of 84.4% (95% CI, 68.3%-93.1%), as well as in the 14- to 20-day group with a sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI, 65.4%-95.0%) versus an Abbott sensitivity of 81.0% (95% CI, 60.0%-92.3%). Less than 14 days of symptoms groups exhibited poor sensitivity at less than 50% for both assays. The areas under curve (± standard error) for Roche (0.894 ± 0.025, P < .001) and Abbott (0.884 ± 0.026, P < .001) were very similar. Potential confounders for negative serologic results include antiretroviral medication use and pauci-symptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS.­: Specificities for high-throughput Roche and Abbott immunoassays are excellent, but users need to be cautious to interpret serologic test results after 14 days of symptoms to avoid false negatives.

Head-to-head evaluation on diagnostic accuracies of six SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.

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.