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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Longitudinal Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG Seropositivity to Detect COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a novel beta-coronavirus that has recently emerged as the cause of the 2019 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based tests are optimal and recommended for the diagnosis of an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests for viral antibodies provide an important tool to diagnose previous exposure to the virus. Here we evaluate the analytical performance parameters of the Diazyme SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG serology assays and describe the kinetics of IgM and IgG seroconversion observed in patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to our hospital. We validated the performance of the Diazyme assay in 235 presumed SARS-CoV-2 negative subjects to determine specificity. Subsequently, we evaluated the SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG seroconversion of 54 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients and determined sensitivity of the assay at three different timeframes. Sensitivity and specificity for detecting seropositivity at ≥15 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result, was 100.0% and 98.7% when assaying for the panel of IgM and IgG. The median time to seropositivity observed for a reactive IgM and IgG result from the date of a positive PCR was 5 days (IQR: 2.75-9 days) and 4 days (IQR: 2.75-6.75 days), respectively. Our data demonstrate that the Diazyme IgM/IgG assays are suited for the purpose of detecting SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections. For the first time, we report longitudinal data showing the evolution of seroconversion for both IgG and IgM in a cohort of acutely ill patients in the United States. We also demonstrate a low false positive rate in patients who were presumed to be disease free.

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