Clinical evaluation of five different automated SARS-CoV-2 serology assays in a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The global market for SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays is becoming ever more crowded with antibody-tests of various formats, targets and technologies, careful evaluation is crucial for understanding the implications of individual test results. Here, we evaluate the clinical performance of five automated immunoassays on a set of clinical samples. Serum/plasma samples of 75 confirmed COVID-19 patients and 320 pre-pandemic serum samples of healthy blood donors were subjected to two IgG and three total antibody SARS-CoV-2-immunoassays. All test setups were automated workflows. Positivity of assays (onset of symptoms > 10 days) ranged between 68.4 % and 81.6 % (Diasorin 68.4 %, Euroimmun 70.3 %, Siemens 73.7 %, Roche 79.0 % and Wantai 81.6 %). All examined assays demonstrated high specificity of >99 % (Euroimmun, Diasorin: 99.1 %, Wantai: 99.4 %) but only two reached levels above 99.5 % (Roche: 99.7 %, Siemens 100 %). Interestingly, there was no overlap in false positive results between the assays. The strongest correlation of quantitative results was observed between the Diasorin and Euroimmun IgG tests (r2 = 0.76). Overall, we observed no difference in the distribution of test results between female and male patients (p-values: 0.18-0.87). A significant difference between severely versus critically ill patients was demonstrated for the Euroimmun, Diasorin, Wantai and Siemens assays (p-values:0.041). All assays showed good clinical performance. Our data confirm that orthogonal test strategies as recommended by the CDC can enhance clinical specificity. However, the suboptimal rates of test positivity found at time of hospitalization in this cohort underline the importance of molecular diagnostics to rule out/confirm active infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Pflüger LS ，Bannasch JH ，Brehm TT ，Pfefferle S ，Hoffmann A ，Nörz D ，van der Meirschen M ，Kluge S ，Haddad M ，Pischke S ，Hiller J ，Addo MM ，Lohse AW ，Schulze Zur Wiesch J ，Peine S ，Aepfelbacher M ，Lütgehetmann M ... -  《-》

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response in PCR positive patients: Comparison of nine tests in relation to clinical data.

Naaber P ，Hunt K ，Pesukova J ，Haljasmägi L ，Rumm P ，Peterson P ，Hololejenko J ，Eero I ，Jõgi P ，Toompere K ，Sepp E ... -  《PLoS One》

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 serological tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 through the evaluation of three immunoassays: Two automated immunoassays (Euroimmun and Abbott) and one rapid lateral flow immunoassay (NG Biotech).

The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 has promoted the development of new serological tests that could be complementary to RT-PCR. Nevertheless, the assessment of clinical performances of available tests is urgently required as their use has just been initiated for diagnose. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of three immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Two automated immunoassays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG/IgA assays) and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA NG-Test® IgG-IgM COVID-19) were tested. 293 specimens were analyzed from patients with a positive RT-PCR response, from patients with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 but exhibiting a negative response to the RT-PCR detection test, and from control group specimens. Days since symptoms onset were collected from clinical information sheet associated with respiratory tract samples. Overall sensitivity for IgG was equivalent (around 80 %) for CLIA, ELISA and LFIA. Sensitivity for IgG detection, >14 days after onset of symptoms, was 100.0 % for all assays. Overall specificity for IgG was greater for CLIA and LFIA (more than 98 %) compared to ELISA (95.8 %). Specificity was significantly different between IgA ELISA (78.9 %) and IgM LFIA (95.8 %) (p < 0.05). The best agreement was observed between CLIA and LFIA assays (97 %; k = 0.936). Excellent sensitivity for IgG detection was obtained >14 days after onset of symptoms for all immunoassays. Specificity was also excellent for IgG CLIA and IgG LFIA. Our study shows that NG-Test® is reliable and accurate for routine use in clinical laboratories.

Nicol T ，Lefeuvre C ，Serri O ，Pivert A ，Joubaud F ，Dubée V ，Kouatchet A ，Ducancelle A ，Lunel-Fabiani F ，Le Guillou-Guillemette H ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Side-by-Side Comparison of Three Fully Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays with a Focus on Specificity.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous new serological test systems for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies rapidly have become available. However, the clinical performance of many of these is still insufficiently described. Therefore, we compared 3 commercial CE-marked, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays side by side. We included a total of 1154 specimens from pre-COVID-19 times and 65 samples from COVID-19 patients (≥14 days after symptom onset) to evaluate the test performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin. All 3 assays presented with high specificities: 99.2% (98.6-99.7) for Abbott, 99.7% (99.2-100.0) for Roche, and 98.3% (97.3-98.9) for DiaSorin. In contrast to the manufacturers' specifications, sensitivities only ranged from 83.1% to 89.2%. Although the 3 methods were in good agreement (Cohen's Kappa 0.71-0.87), McNemar tests revealed significant differences between results obtained from Roche and DiaSorin. However, at low seroprevalences, the minor differences in specificity resulted in profound discrepancies of positive predictive values at 1% seroprevalence: 52.3% (36.2-67.9), 77.6% (52.8-91.5), and 32.6% (23.6-43.1) for Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin, respectively. We found diagnostically relevant differences in specificities for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin that have a significant impact on the positive predictive values of these tests.

Perkmann T ，Perkmann-Nagele N ，Breyer MK ，Breyer-Kohansal R ，Burghuber OC ，Hartl S ，Aletaha D ，Sieghart D ，Quehenberger P ，Marculescu R ，Mucher P ，Strassl R ，Wagner OF ，Binder CJ ，Haslacher H ... -  《-》