4.7 Article

Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassay

Journal

CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION
Volume 26, Issue 10, Pages 1386-1394

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.06.024

Keywords

COVID-19; ELISA; Pseudovirus neutralisation assay; Recombinant immunofluorescence assay; SARS-CoV-2; Serological assays; Serological testing strategy

Funding

  1. Center for Emerging Viral Diseases
  2. Private Foundation of the Geneva University Hospitals
  3. Pictet Charitable Foundation
  4. Ancrage Foundation
  5. Center of Vaccinology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19. Methods: In this unmatched (1:2) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 326 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay. Results: COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.990 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.983-0.996) and 0.978 (95%CI: 0.967-0.989), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.01). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 2.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 99-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 96-100). A 0.8 cut-off displayed a 94% sensitivity (95%CI: 88-97) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 95-99). Substituting the upper threshold for the manufacturer's, improved assay performance, leaving 8.9% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.8-2.5. Conclusions: The Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rulein and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage. (C) 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available