Application, Verification, and Implementation of SARS-CoV-2 Serologic Assays with Emergency Use Authorization

Assessing the performance of commercial serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis

Objectives

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has triggered a global pandemic with profound implications for public health. Rapid changes in the pandemic landscape and limitations in in vitro diagnostics led to the introduction of numerous diagnostic devices with variable performance. In this study, we evaluated three commercial serological assays in Brazil for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Methods

We collected 90 serum samples from SARS-CoV-2-negative blood donors and 352 from SARS-CoV-2-positive, unvaccinated patients, categorized by symptom onset. Subsequently, we assessed the diagnostic performance of three commercial enzyme immunoassays: GOLD ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) COVID-19 Ig (immunoglobulin) G + IgM, Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgM ELISA, and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgG ELISA.

Results

Our findings revealed that the GOLD ELISA COVID-19 IgG + IgM exhibited the highest sensitivity (57.7%) and diagnostic odds ratio, surpassing the manufacturer's reported sensitivity in most analyzed time frames while maintaining exceptional specificity (98.9%). Conversely, the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgG ELISA demonstrated lower sensitivity but aligned with independent evaluations, boasting a specificity of 100%. However, the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgM ELISA exhibited lower sensitivity than claimed, particularly in samples collected shortly after positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction results. Performance improved 15-21 days after symptom onset and beyond 22 days, but in the first week, both Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgM ELISA and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP IgG ELISA struggled to differentiate positive and negative samples.

Conclusions

Our study emphasizes the need for standardized validation protocols to address discrepancies between manufacturer-claimed and actual performance. These insights provide essential information for health care practitioners and policymakers regarding the diagnostic capabilities of these assays in various clinical scenarios.

Performance and correlation of ten commercial immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Accurate immunoassays with a good correlation to neutralizing antibodies are required to support SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, management, vaccine deployment, and epidemiological investigation. We conducted a study to evaluate the performance and correlation of the surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and other commercial immunoassays. We tested 107 sera of COVID-19 confirmed cases from three different time points, 58 confirmed non-COVID-19 sera, and 52 sera collected before the pandemic with two sVNTs, seven chemiluminescent assays, and one fluorescein assay. All assays achieved excellent sensitivity (95%-100%, ≥15 days after onset of illness), specificity (95.5%-100%), and showed moderate to high correlation with GenScript sVNT (r = 0.58 to r = 0.98), except Roche total antibodies (r = 0.48). Vazyme sVNT and Siemens total antibodies showed the highest correlation with GenScript sVNT (r = 0.98 and 0.88, respectively). Median indexes that may be used to estimate sera with the highest ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 and ACE-2 receptor attachment (GenScript sVNT inhibition 90%-100%) were 6.9 S/C (Abbott IgG), 161.9 COI (FREND™ IgG), 16.8 AU/ml (Snibe IgG), 40.1 S/CO (Beckman IgG), 281.9 U/ml (Mindray IgG), 712.2 U/ml (Mindray total antibodies), >10 index (Siemens total antibodies), and 95.3% inhibition (Vazyme sVNT). All ten commercial COVID-19 serology assays, with different targeting antigens, demonstrated a reliable performance, supporting the utility of those assays in clinical and research settings. However, further studies using more samples are needed to refine the results of evaluating the performances of these marketed serological assays. Reliable serological assays would be useful for clinicians, researchers and epidemiologists in confirming SARS-CoV-2 infections, observing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and immune response post infection and vaccination, leading to better management and control of the disease.

Evaluation of a Multiplex Bead Assay against Single-Target Assays for Detection of IgG Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2

Serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies must be validated for performance with a large panel of clinical specimens. Most existing assays utilize a single antigen target and may be subject to reduced diagnostic specificity. This study evaluated a multiplex assay that detects antibodies to three SARS-CoV-2 targets. Human serum specimens (n = 323) with known previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure status were tested on a commercially available multiplex bead assay (MBA) measuring IgG to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD), nucleocapsid protein (NP), and RBD/NP fusion antigens. Assay performance was evaluated against reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) results and also compared with test results for two single-target commercial assays. The MBA had a diagnostic sensitivity of 89.8% and a specificity of 100%, with serum collection at >28 days following COVID-19 symptom onset showing the highest seropositivity rates (sensitivity: 94.7%). The MBA performed comparably to single-target assays with the ability to detect IgG against specific antigen targets, with 19 (5.9%) discrepant specimens compared to the NP IgG assay and 12 (3.7%) compared to the S1 RBD IgG assay (kappa coefficients 0.92 and 0.88 compared to NP IgG and S1 RBD IgG assays, respectively. These findings highlight inherent advantages of using a SARS-CoV-2 serological test with multiple antigen targets; specifically, the ability to detect IgG against RBD and NP antigens simultaneously. In particular, the 100.0% diagnostic specificity exhibited by the MBA in this study is important for its implementation in populations with low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence or where background antibody reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 antigens has been detected. IMPORTANCE Reporting of SARS-CoV-2 infections through nucleic acid or antigen based diagnostic tests severely underestimates the true burden of exposure in a population. Serological data assaying for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antigens offers an alternative source of data to estimate population exposure, but most current immunoassays only include a single target for antibody detection. This report outlines a direct comparison of a multiplex bead assay to two other commercial single-target assays in their ability to detect IgG against SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Against a well-defined panel of 323 serum specimens, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were very high for the multiplex assay, with strong agreement in IgG detection for single targets compared to the single-target assays. Collection of more data for individual- and population-level seroprofiles allows further investigation into more accurate exposure estimates and research into the determinants of infection and convalescent responses.

Seroprevalence and characteristics of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in workers with non-specific disease symptoms

Background

The population-based serosurveys are essential for estimating Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) burden and monitoring the progression of this pandemic. We aimed to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and potential predictors of seropositivity in the Pakistani population.

Methodology

This population-based seroprevalence study includes consenting subjects from the workplaces (factories, corporates, restaurants, media houses, schools, banks, and hospitals) located in the urban areas of Karachi, Lahore, Multan, Peshawar, and Quetta. We analyzed each subject's serum sample for SARS-CoV-2-IgM and/or IgG antibodies using UNIPER IgG/IgM Rapid COVID-19 Testing Kit. The subject's demographics, exposure history, and symptoms experienced (in last 7 days) were also obtained. The collected data was analyzed using SPSS version 22.0.

Results

The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 16.0% (2810/17,764). The total antibody seropositivity was higher in males than females (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.110–1.340). The symptomatic subjects had 2.18 times higher odds of IgG seropositivity while 1.2 times for IgM seropositivity than the asymptomatic subjects. The multivariable logistic regression model showed that the odds of SARS-CoV-2 total antibody seroprevalence were affected by the number of dependents (OR = 1.077; 95% CI 1.054–1.099), apparent symptomology (OR = 1.288; 95% CI 1.011–1.643), close unprotected contact with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 (OR 2.470; 95% CI 2.164–2.819), traveling history (last 14 days) (OR = 1.537; 95% CI 1.234–1.914) and proximity with someone who traveled (OR = 1.534; 95% CI 1.241–1.896).

Conclusion

We found a reasonable seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the studied population. Several factors like the number of dependents, apparent symptoms, close unprotected contact with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19, traveling history, and proximity with someone who traveled are associated with increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity.

Immunity to SARS-CoV-2: What Do We Know and Should We Be Testing for It?

Preexisting immunity to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) was nonexistent in humans, which coupled with high transmission rates of certain SARS-CoV-2 variants and limited vaccine uptake or availability, has collectively resulted in an ongoing global pandemic. The identification and establishment of one or multiple correlates of protection (CoP) against infectious pathogens is challenging, but beneficial from both the patient care and public health perspectives. Multiple studies have shown that neutralizing antibodies, whether generated following SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination, or a combination of both (i.e., hybrid immunity), as well as adaptive cellular immune responses, serve as CoPs for COVID-19. However, the diverse number and type of serologic assays, alongside the lack of cross-assay standardization and emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants with immune evasive characteristics, have collectively posed challenges to determining a robust CoP ‘threshold’ and for the routine utilization of these assays to document ‘immunity,’ as is commonly done for other vaccine preventable diseases. Here, we discuss what CoPs are, review our current understanding of infection-induced, vaccine-elicited and hybrid immunity to COVID-19 and summarize the current and potential future utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing.

Performance Characteristics of High-Throughput Serologic Assays for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 with Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization: A Review

This review provides a broad summary of the performance characteristics of high-throughput severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic assays with Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization, which are commonly found in central clinical laboratories. In addition, this review discusses the current roles of serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and provides a perspective for the future.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seroassay Performance and Optimization in a Population With High Background Reactivity in Mali

BACKGROUND

False positivity may hinder the utility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

From 312 Malian samples collected before 2020, we measured antibodies to the commonly tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens and 4 other betacoronaviruses by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). In a subset of samples, we assessed antibodies to a panel of Plasmodium falciparum antigens by suspension bead array and functional antiviral activity by SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay. We then evaluated the performance of an ELISA using SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and receptor-binding domain developed in the United States using Malian positive and negative control samples. To optimize test performance, we compared single- and 2-antigen approaches using existing assay cutoffs and population-specific cutoffs.

RESULTS

Background reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 antigens was common in prepandemic Malian samples. The SARS-CoV-2 reactivity varied between communities, increased with age, and correlated negligibly/weakly with other betacoronavirus and P falciparum antibodies. No prepandemic samples demonstrated functional activity. Regardless of the cutoffs applied, test specificity improved using a 2-antigen approach. Test performance was optimal using a 2-antigen assay with population-specific cutoffs (sensitivity, 73.9% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 51.6-89.8]; specificity, 99.4% [95% CI, 97.7-99.9]).

CONCLUSIONS

We have addressed the problem of SARS-CoV-2 seroassay performance in Africa by using a 2-antigen assay with cutoffs defined by performance in the target population.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seroassay Performance and Optimization in a Population With High Background Reactivity in Mali

BACKGROUND

False positivity may hinder the utility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

From 312 Malian samples collected before 2020, we measured antibodies to the commonly tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens and 4 other betacoronaviruses by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). In a subset of samples, we assessed antibodies to a panel of Plasmodium falciparum antigens by suspension bead array and functional antiviral activity by SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay. We then evaluated the performance of an ELISA using SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and receptor-binding domain developed in the United States using Malian positive and negative control samples. To optimize test performance, we compared single- and 2-antigen approaches using existing assay cutoffs and population-specific cutoffs.

RESULTS

Background reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 antigens was common in prepandemic Malian samples. The SARS-CoV-2 reactivity varied between communities, increased with age, and correlated negligibly/weakly with other betacoronavirus and P falciparum antibodies. No prepandemic samples demonstrated functional activity. Regardless of the cutoffs applied, test specificity improved using a 2-antigen approach. Test performance was optimal using a 2-antigen assay with population-specific cutoffs (sensitivity, 73.9% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 51.6-89.8]; specificity, 99.4% [95% CI, 97.7-99.9]).

CONCLUSIONS

We have addressed the problem of SARS-CoV-2 seroassay performance in Africa by using a 2-antigen assay with cutoffs defined by performance in the target population.

Assessing the Quality of Serological Testing in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of a European External Quality Assessment (EQA) Scheme for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Detection

External quality assessment (EQA) is a key instrument for achieving harmonization, and thus a high quality, of diagnostic procedures. As reliable test results are crucial for accurate assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence, vaccine response, and immunity, and thus for successful management of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Reference Institute for Bioanalytics (RfB) was the first EQA provider to offer an open scheme for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection. The main objectives of this EQA were (i) to gain insights into the current diagnostic landscape and the performance of serological tests in Europe and (ii) to provide recommendations for diagnostic improvements. Within the EQA, a blinded panel of precharacterized human serum samples with variable anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers was provided for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies. Across the three distribution rounds in 2020, 284 laboratories from 22 countries reported a total of 3,744 results for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection using more than 24 different assays for IgG. Overall, 97/3,004 results were false for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, 88/248 for IgA, and 34/124 for IgM. Regarding diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, substantial differences were found between the different assays used, as well as between certified and noncertified tests. For cutoff samples, a drop in the diagnostic sensitivity to 46.3% and high interlaboratory variability were observed. In general, this EQA highlights the current variability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection, technical limitations with respect to cutoff samples, and the lack of harmonization of testing procedures. Recommendations are provided to help laboratories and manufacturers further improve the quality of anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological diagnostics.

Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of 7 Serological Assays for SARS-CoV-2 for Use in Clinical Laboratories

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological assays have emerged as a response to the global pandemic, warranting studies evaluating their clinical performance. This study investigated seven commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological assays in samples from non-infected individuals and hospitalized patients.

Methods

SARS-CoV-2 qualitative serological assays by Abbott (IgG), Beckman (IgG), DiaSorin (IgG), EUROIMMUN (IgG and IgA), Roche and Bio-Rad (Total) were evaluated using specimens collected pre-December 2019 (n=393), from nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) negative patients (n=40), and from 53 patients with COVID-19 by NAAT collected 3-21 days post-onset of symptoms (POS) (N=83). Negative agreement (NA), positive agreement (PA), and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) at prevalences of 5% and 10% were calculated.

Results

The overall %NA;95% CI in the negative samples were: Roche 99.8%; 99.3-100.2, Beckman 99.8%; 98.7-100.0, Abbott and Bio-Rad 99.3%; 98.0-99.9, DiaSorin 98.4; 97.2-99.6, EUROIMMUN IgG 97.5%; 95.5-98.7, and EUROIMMUN IgA 79.7%; 75.9-83.5), accounting for positive/equivocal results as false positives. The %PA; 95% CI in samples collected 14+days POS (n=24) were: Bio-Rad 83.3%; 68.4-98.2, Abbott and Roche 79.2%; 62.9-95.4, EUROIMMUN IgA 70.8%; 52.6-89.0, Beckman 58.3%; 38.6-78.1, DiaSorin 54.2; 34.2-74.1, and EUROIMMUN IgG 50.0%; 30.0-70.0, accounting for negative/equivocal results as false negatives. NPVs ranged from 97.4-98.9% and 94.7-97.7% for prevalences 5% and 10%, respectively. PPVs ranged from 15.5-94.8% and 27.9-97.4% for prevalences 5% and 10%, respectively.

Conclusions

The Roche and Beckman assays resulted in fewer false positives followed by the Bio-Rad and Abbott assays. While the Bio-Rad assay demonstrated higher antibody detection in COVID-19-positive patients, PA claims cannot be established with a high level of confidence in our sample population.

Population (Antibody) Testing for COVID-19-Technical Challenges, Application and Relevance, an English Perspective

In the UK, population virus or antibody testing using virus swabs, serum samples, blood spots or oral fluids has been performed to a limited extent for several diseases including measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis and HIV. The collection of population-based infection and immunity data is key to the monitoring of disease prevalence and assessing the effectiveness of interventions such as behavioural modifications and vaccination. In particular, the biological properties of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its interaction with the human host have presented several challenges towards the development of population-based immunity testing. Measuring SARS-CoV-2 immunity requires the development of antibody assays of acceptable sensitivity and specificity which are capable of accurately detecting seroprevalence and differentiating protection from non-protective responses. Now that anti-COVID-19 vaccines are becoming available there is a pressing need to measure vaccine efficacy and the development of herd immunity. The unprecedented impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the UK in terms of morbidity, mortality, and economic and social disruption has mobilized a national scientific effort to learn more about this virus. In this article, the challenges of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in relation to population-based immunity testing, will be considered and examples given of relevant national level studies.

Interlaboratory Agreement of Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Serologic Assays in the Expedited College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Program

CONTEXT.—

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a recently emerged, currently pandemic virus, and the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly become widespread, but data regarding the interlaboratory performance of these serologic assays are limited.

OBJECTIVE.—

To describe the development and initial results of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) SARS-CoV-2 Serology Survey.

DESIGN.—

Members from the CAP Microbiology and Diagnostic Immunology and Flow Cytometry Committees formed a working group to support development of a new proficiency testing survey for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Supplemental questions in the survey assessed the state of SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing among participating laboratories as of July 2020. Results were analyzed for agreement by immunoglobulin (Ig) isotype tested, assay manufacturer, and methodology.

RESULTS.—

A total of 4125 qualitative results were received from 1110 laboratories participating in the first survey. Qualitative agreement for assays measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies or IgG was greater than 90% for all 3 samples in the survey. Qualitative agreement for IgM and IgA for the negative sample was greater than 95%, but lacked consensus for the other 2 samples.

CONCLUSIONS.—

These initial data suggest overall excellent agreement and comparable performance for most qualitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and total antibody assays across all participating clinical laboratories, regardless of specific target antigen or assay methodology.

An international comparison of anti-SARS-COV-2 assays used for seroprevalence surveys from blood component providers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Access to large pools of healthy adult donors advantageously positions blood component providers to undertake anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies. While numerous seroprevalence reports have been published by blood operators during the COVID-19 pandemic, details on the assay used has not been well documented. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the diversity of assays being used by blood operators and assess how this may affect seroprevalence estimates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed 49 blood component providers from 39 countries. Questionnaire included information on the number and identity of assays used, the detected immunoglobulin(s) and target antigen, and performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity).

RESULTS

Thirty-eight of the 49 contacted blood suppliers provided at least partial responses. The results indicate that 19 commercial and five in-house serology assays have been used by surveyed blood operators. The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay was the most commonly used kit and utilized by 15 blood suppliers. Two assays did not detect IgG, but detected either IgM/IgA or IgM. 68·2% of assays targeted the spike protein and 50% the nucleocapsid protein, while 18·2% targeted both viral proteins. The sensitivity and specificity of IgG-specific assays ranged from 71·9% to 100% and from 96·2% to 100%, respectively. As of 18 October 2020, the seroprevalence was below 5% in 10 of 14 countries reporting.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the diversity of assays being used. Analyses comparing blood donor seroprevalence across countries should consider assay characteristics with optimization of signal/cut-off ratios and consistent methodology to adjust for waning antibody.

Performance of the rapid high-throughput automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay targeting total antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain in comparison to the neutralization assay

Background

Neutralization tests (NT) are the gold standard for detecting and quantifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAb), but their complexity restricts them to research settings or reference laboratories. Antibodies against S protein receptor binding domain (RBD) have been shown to confer a neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2. Assays quantitatively measuring anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies could be of great value for NAb screening of potential donors for convalescent-phase plasma therapy, assessing natural or vaccine-induced immunity, stratifying individuals for vaccine receipt, and documenting vaccine response.

Methods

Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Elecsys-S), a high-throughput automated electrochemiluminescence double-antigen sandwich immunoassay for quantitative measurement of pan-anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, was evaluated against NT on 357 patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. NT was performed in a BSL-3 laboratory using a Slovenian SARS-CoV-2 isolate; the NT titer ≥1:20 was considered positive.

Results

Elecsys-S detected pan-anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in 352/357 (98.6 %) samples. NAb were identified by NT in 257/357 (72 %) samples. The Elecsys-S/NT agreement was moderate (Cohen’s kappa 0.56). High NT titer antibodies (≥1:160) were detected in 106/357 (30 %) samples. Elecsys-S’s pan-anti-S1-RBD-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations correlated with individual NT titer categories (the lowest concentrations were identified in NT-negative samples and the highest in samples with NT titer 1:1,280), and the Elecsys-S cutoff value for reasonable prediction of NAb generated after natural infection was established (133 BAU/mL).

Conclusion

Although NT should remain the gold standard for assessing candidates for convalescent-phase plasma donors, selected commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays with optimized cutoff, like Elecsys-S, could be used for rapid, automated, and large-scale screening of individuals with clinically relevant NAb levels as suitable donors.

Clinical Evaluation of an Immunochromatographic-Based IgM/IgG Antibody Assay (GenBody™ COVI040) for Detection of Antibody Seroconversion in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection

There is a need for accurate diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an immunochromatography-based immunoglobulin G (IgG)/immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody assay (GenBody™ COVI040) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroconversion in COVID-19 patients. A total of 130 samples, serially collected from patients with confirmed COVID-19, and 100 negative control samples were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG using the GenBody™ COVI040 assay following the South Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety guidelines on the review and approval of in vitro diagnostic devices for COVID-19. Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction results were used as the comparator. The overall sensitivity of the GenBody™ COVI040 assay was 97.69% (95% confidence interval (CI): 93.40–99.52%). The sensitivity of the assay increased with time post symptom onset (PSO) (sensitivity ≤6 days PSO: 78.57%, 95% CI: 49.20–95.34%; sensitivity 7–13 days PSO: 100%, 95% CI: 87.23–100%; and sensitivity ≥14 days PSO: 100%, 95% CI: 95.94–100%). The specificity of the assay was 100% (95% CI: 96.38–100%). The GenBody™ COVI040 assay showed high sensitivity and specificity, making it a promising diagnostic test to monitor COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 seroassay optimization and performance in a population with high background reactivity in Mali

Serological tests are an indispensable tool to understand the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, particularly in areas where molecular diagnostics are limited. Poor assay performance may hinder the utility of these tests, including high rates of false-positivity previously reported in sub-Saharan Africa. From 312 Malian samples collected prior to 2020, we measured antibodies to the commonly tested SARS-CoV-2 antigens and four other betacoronaviruses by ELISA, and assessed functional cross-reactivity in a subset by SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay. We then evaluated the performance of an ELISA developed in the US, using two-antigen SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and receptor-binding domain. To optimize test performance, we compared single and two-antigen approaches using existing assay cutoffs and population-specific cutoffs for Malian control samples (positive and negative). Background reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 antigens was common in pre-pandemic samples compared to US controls (43.4% (135/311) for spike protein, 22.8% (71/312) for RBD, and 33.9% (79/233) for nucleocapsid protein). SARS-CoV-2 reactivity correlated weakly with other betacoronavirus reactivity, varied between Malian communities, and increased with age. No pre-pandemic samples demonstrated functional activity. Regardless of the cutoffs applied, specificity improved using a two-antigen approach. Test performance was optimal using a two-antigen assay with population-specific cutoffs derived from ROC curve analysis [Sensitivity: 73.9% (51.6-89.8), Specificity: 99.4% (97.7-99.9)]. In the setting of high background reactivity, such as sub-Saharan Africa, SARS-CoV-2 serological assays need careful qualification is to characterize the epidemiology of disease, prevent unnecessary harm, and allocate resources for targeted control measures.

Head-to-head comparison of two rapid high-throughput automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassays targeting total antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein and spike protein receptor binding domain

BACKGROUND

Accurate anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to inform diagnostic, therapeutic, and public health decisions. The first manufacturer-independent head-to-head comparison of two rapid high-throughput automated electrochemiluminescence double-antigen sandwich immunoassays targeting total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against two different viral proteins, Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Elecsys-N) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Elecsys-S) (Roche Diagnostics), was performed in a routine setting during the exponential growth phase of the epidemic's second wave.

METHODS

The diagnostic specificity of Elecsys-N and Elecsys-S was initially evaluated on a panel of 572 pre-COVID-19 samples, showing 100 % specificity of both assays. Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S head-to-head comparison used 3,416 consecutive blood samples from individuals that were tested for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 within commercial out-of-pocket serologic testing.

RESULTS

Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S head-to-head comparison showed overall agreement of 98.68 % (3,371/3,416; 95 % CI, 98.23-99.03 %), positive agreement of 95.16 % (884/929; 95 % CI, 93.52-96.41 %), and a high kappa value of 0.996 (95 % CI, 0.956-0.976). Previous SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity was identified in 14/24 (58.3 %) Elecsys-N negative/Elecsys-S positive individuals and in 4/21 (19.0 %) Elecsys-N positive/Elecsys-S negative individuals.

CONCLUSION

The first Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S head-to-head comparison showed excellent agreement of two highly specific and rapid high-throughput automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays. An important question is whether laboratories offering two different antibody assays could benefit from combining the assays; if so, should use be concomitant or sequential-and, in the latter case, in which order? Based on our results, we favor concomitant over sequential Elecsys-N/Elecsys-S use when testing individuals for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in high-incidence settings; for example, during the exponential or stationary growth phase of the COVID-19 epidemic.

Comparative Performance of Five Commercially Available Serologic Assays To Detect Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and Identify Individuals with High Neutralizing Titers

Accurate serological assays to detect antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to characterize the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify potential candidates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) donation. This study compared the performances of commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) with respect to detection of IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs). The diagnostic accuracy of five commercially available EIAs (Abbott, Euroimmun, EDI, ImmunoDiagnostics, and Roche) for detection of IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated using cross-sectional samples from potential CCP donors who had prior molecular confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 214) and samples from prepandemic emergency department patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 1,099).

Accurate serological assays to detect antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to characterize the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify potential candidates for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) donation. This study compared the performances of commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) with respect to detection of IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs). The diagnostic accuracy of five commercially available EIAs (Abbott, Euroimmun, EDI, ImmunoDiagnostics, and Roche) for detection of IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated using cross-sectional samples from potential CCP donors who had prior molecular confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 214) and samples from prepandemic emergency department patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 1,099). Of the 214 potential CCP donors, all were sampled >14 days since symptom onset and only a minority (n = 16 [7.5%]) had been hospitalized due to COVID-19; 140 potential CCP donors were tested by all five EIAs and a microneutralization assay. Performed according to the protocols of the manufacturers to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the sensitivity of each EIA ranged from 76.4% to 93.9%, and the specificity of each EIA ranged from 87.0% to 99.6%. Using a nAb titer cutoff value of ≥160 as the reference representing a positive test result (n = 140 CCP donors), the empirical area under the receiver operating curve for each EIA ranged from 0.66 (Roche) to 0.90 (Euroimmun). Commercial EIAs with high diagnostic accuracy to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not necessarily have high diagnostic accuracy to detect high nAb titers. Some but not all commercial EIAs may be useful in the identification of individuals with high nAb titers among convalescent individuals.