Evaluation of an Electrochemiluminescent SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assay.

Little is known about the performance of the Roche novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody (anti-SARS-CoV-2) assay. We provide an extensive evaluation of this fully automated assay on Cobas e801/e602 immunoassay analyzers. We assessed the linearity, precision, and throughput of the Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay. Sensitivity was calculated from 349 SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive samples; specificity was determined from 715 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-naive samples. We examined cross-reactivity against other antibody positive samples [syphilis, rheumatoid factor (RF), antinuclear antibody (ANA), double-stranded DNA (ds-DNA), influenza, dengue, hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV)] and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 kinetics. The assay cut-off index (COI) was linear up to 90.8. The interassay precision was 2.9% for a negative control (COI = 0.1) and 5.1% for a positive control (COI = 3.0). Assay time is 18 min and results are available 1 min later; throughput for 300 samples was 76 min. Only 1 case positive for HBsAg tested falsely positive; specificity was 99.9%. The assay has a sensitivity of 97.1% 14 days after PCR positivity (POS) and 100% at ≥21 days POS; 48.2% of cases had anti-SARS-CoV-2 within 6 days POS. In 11 patients in whom serum was available prior to a positive antibody signal (COI ≥1.0) the interval between the last negative and first positive COI (time to "seroconversion") on average is 3 days (range 1-6 days) and 4 more days (range 1-7) for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 to plateau. The Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay shows excellent performance with minimal cross-reactivity from other viral and confounding antibodies. Antibody development and seroconversion appears quite early.

Lau CS ，Hoo SP ，Yew SF ，Ong SK ，Lum LT ，Heng PY ，Tan JG ，Wong MS ，Aw TC ... -  《-》

Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

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. 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. 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). 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.

Merrill AE ，Jackson JB ，Ehlers A ，Voss D ，Krasowski MD ... -  《-》

Multi-Platform Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays for the Detection of COVID-19.

COVID-19 is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel beta-coronavirus that is responsible for the 2019 coronavirus pandemic. Acute infections should be diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based tests, but serology tests can demonstrate previous exposure to the virus. We compared the performance of the Diazyme, Roche, and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 serology assays using 179 negative participants to determine negative percentage agreement (NPA) and in 60 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed positive patients to determine positive percentage agreement (PPA) at 3 different time frames following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. At ≥15 days, the PPA (95% CI) was 100 (86.3-100)% for the Diazyme IgM/IgG panel, 96.0 (79.7-99.9)% for the Roche total Ig assay, and 100 (86.3-100)% for the Abbott IgG assay. The NPA (95% CI) was 98.3 (95.2-99.7)% for the Diazyme IgM/IgG panel, 99.4 (96.9-100)% for the Roche total Ig assay, and 98.9 (96.0-99.9)% for the Abbott IgG assay. When the Roche total Ig assay was combined with either the Diazyme IgM/IgG panel or the Abbott IgG assay, the positive predictive value was 100% while the negative predictive value remained greater than 99%. Our data demonstrates that the Diazyme, Roche, and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 serology assays have similar clinical performances. We demonstrated a low false-positive rate across all 3 platforms and observed that false positives observed on the Roche platform are unique compared to those observed on the Diazyme or Abbott assays. Using multiple platforms in tandem increases the PPVs, which is important when screening populations with low disease prevalence.

Suhandynata RT ，Hoffman MA ，Kelner MJ ，McLawhon RW ，Reed SL ，Fitzgerald RL ... -  《-》

Cross-Comparison of a Chemiluminescent Platform and a Commercial Receptor Binding Domain-Based ELISA for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgG.

Antoine-Reid T ，Malone J ，Maris AS ，White-Abell J ，Schmitz JE ... -  《-》

Multicenter evaluation of two chemiluminescence and three lateral flow immunoassays for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessment of antibody dynamic responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Taiwan.

Chen SY ，Lee YL ，Lin YC ，Lee NY ，Liao CH ，Hung YP ，Lu MC ，Wu JL ，Tseng WP ，Lin CH ，Chung MY ，Kang CM ，Lee YF ，Lee TF ，Cheng CY ，Chen CP ，Huang CH ，Liu CE ，Cheng SH ，Ko WC ，Hsueh PR ，Chen SC ... -  《Emerging Microbes & Infections》