This article is a Preprint
Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Preprints posted online allow authors to receive rapid feedback and the entire scientific community can appraise the work for themselves and respond appropriately. Those comments are posted alongside the preprints for anyone to read them and serve as a post publication assessment.
Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays for use in epidemiological surveillance in Scotland
Preprint
in English
| medRxiv
| ID: ppmedrxiv-21255596
Journal article
A scientific journal published article is available and is probably based on this preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See journal article
A scientific journal published article is available and is probably based on this preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See journal article
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.
cc_by_nc
Full text:
Available
Collection:
Preprints
Database:
medRxiv
Type of study:
Diagnostic study
/
Observational study
/
Rct
Language:
English
Year:
2021
Document type:
Preprint