Abstract
Background Evaluating the performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays and clearly articulating the utility of selected antigen, isotypes and thresholds is crucial to understanding the prevalence of infection within selected communities.
Methods This cross-sectional study, implemented in 2020, screened PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients (n=86), banked pre-pandemic and negative donors (n=96), health care workers and family members (n=552), and university employees (n=327) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD), trimeric spike protein (S), and nucleocapsid protein (N) IgG and IgA antibodies with a laboratory developed Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and tested how antigen, isotype and threshold choices affected the seroprevalence. The following threshold methods were evaluated: (i) mean + 3 standard deviations of the negative controls; (ii) 100% specificity for each antigen/isotype combination; and (iii) the maximal Youden index.
Results We found vastly different seroprevalence estimates depending on selected antigens, isotypes and the applied threshold method, ranging from 0.0% to 85.4%. Subsequently, we maximized specificity and reported a seroprevalence, based on more than one antigen, ranging from 9.3% to 25.9%.
Conclusions This study revealed the importance of evaluating serosurvey tools for antigen, isotype, and threshold-specific sensitivity and specificity, in order to interpret qualitative serosurvey outcomes reliably and consistently across studies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported through the National Institutes of Health, NCI Serological Sciences Network (U01 CA261276), UMass COVID-19 pandemic research fund, and a MassCPR Evergrande Award.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of UMass Chan Medical School name gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
