Performance characteristics of five immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2: a head-to-head benchmark comparison

Mark Ainsworth, Monique Andersson, Kathryn Auckland and 97 more

The Lancet Infectious Diseases · 2020 · CC BY

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a global pandemic in 2020. Testing is crucial for mitigating public health and economic effects. Serology is considered key to population-level surveillance and potentially individual-level risk assessment. However, immunoassay performance has not been compared on large, identical sample sets. We aimed to investigate the performance of four high-throughput commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays and a novel 384-well ELISA. METHODS: We did a head-to-head assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG assay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), SARS-CoV-2 Total assay (Siemens, Munich, Germany), and a novel 384-well ELISA (the Oxford immunoassay). We derived sensitivity and specificity from 976 pre-pandemic blood samples (collected between Sept 4, 2014, and Oct 4, 2016) and 536 blood samples from patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, collected at least 20 days post symptom onset (collected between Feb 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess assay thresholds. FINDINGS: At the manufacturers' thresholds, for the Abbott assay sensitivity was 92·7% (95% CI 90·2-94·8) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4-100%); for the DiaSorin assay sensitivity was 96·2% (94·2-97·7) and specificity was 98·9% (98·0-99·4); for the Oxford immunoassay sensitivity was 99·1% (97·8-99·7) and specificity was 99·0% (98·1-99·5); for the Roche assay sensitivity was 97·2% (95·4-98·4) and specificity was 99·8% (99·3-100); and for the Siemens assay sensitivity was 98·1% (96·6-99·1) and specificity was 99·9% (99·4-100%). All assays achieved a sensitivity of at least 98% with thresholds optimised to achieve a specificity of at least 98% on samples taken 30 days or more post symptom onset. INTERPRETATION: Four commercial, widely available assays and a scalable 384-well ELISA can be used for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing to achieve sensitivity and specificity of at least 98%. The Siemens assay and Oxford immunoassay achieved these metrics without further optimisation. This benchmark study in immunoassay assessment should enable refinements of testing strategies and the best use of serological testing resource to benefit individuals and population health. FUNDING: Public Health England and UK National Institute for Health Research.

References 31

1.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
2.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
3.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
4.
MERS-CoV Antibody Responses 1 Year after Symptom Onset, South Korea, 2015 · 2017
No notice
5.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
6.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
7.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
8.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
9.
Performance Characteristics of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Assay and Seroprevalence in Boise, Idaho · 2020
No notice
10.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
11.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
12.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
13.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
14.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
15.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
16.
Antibody testing for COVID-19: A report from the National COVID Scientific Advisory Panel · 2020
No notice
17.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
18.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
19.
Clinical and Analytical Performance of an Automated Serological Test That Identifies S1/S2-Neutralizing IgG in COVID-19 Patients Semiquantitatively · 2020
No notice
20.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
21.
An evaluation of COVID-19 serological assays informs future diagnostics and exposure assessment · 2020
No notice
22.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
23.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
24.
Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months · 2020
No notice
25.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
26.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
27.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
28.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
29.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
30.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library
31.
This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.
Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 17

SARS-CoV-2 IgG spike protein antibody response in mRNA-1273 Moderna® vaccinated patients on maintenance immunoapheresis – a cohort study · 2022
Not checked
Variation in the COVID-19 infection–fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: a systematic analysis · 2022
Corrected
SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and breakthrough infections in the Virus Watch cohort · 2022
Not checked
Antibody responses and correlates of protection in the general population after two doses of the ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 vaccines · 2022
No notice
Comparison of three serological chemiluminescence immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2, and clinical significance of antibody index with disease severity. · 2021
Not checked
Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in 45,965 adults from the general population of the United Kingdom · 2021
No notice
Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection · 2021
No notice
Effect of Delta variant on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK · 2021
No notice
SARS-CoV-2 antibody magnitude and detectability are driven by disease severity, timing, and assay · 2021
No notice
T cell assays differentiate clinical and subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infections from cross-reactive antiviral responses · 2021
No notice
Impact of vaccination on new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the United Kingdom · 2021
No notice
Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States · 2021
No notice
Estimated SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in the US as of September 2020 · 2021
No notice
Relationship of SARS-CoV-2–specific CD4 response to COVID-19 severity and impact of HIV-1 and tuberculosis coinfection · 2021
No notice
SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected in blood products from patients with COVID-19 is not associated with infectious virus · 2020
No notice
Humoral Responses and Serological Assays in SARS-CoV-2 Infections · 2020
No notice
Differential occupational risks to healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 observed during a prospective observational study · 2020
No notice

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.