Abstract
Background The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd) was developed for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated the sensitivity of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay in samples from a diverse cross-section of patients across multiple sites and compared results against commercially available comparators.
Methods Sensitivity of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay was evaluated using anonymised, frozen, residual single and sequential serum and plasma samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and method comparisons performed versus the following comparator assays: Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total, and YHLO iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM.
Results Overall sensitivity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay in 219 samples drawn ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation was 93.6% (95% CI 89.5–96.5). Across the three study sites, sensitivity in samples drawn ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation ranged from 85.7–98.9%. Sensitivity was significantly higher for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay compared with the YHLO iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay for samples drawn ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation (86.3% [95% CI 76.7–92.9] versus 33.8% [95% CI 23.6–45.2]). Both Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total and YHLO iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays had a significantly higher sensitivity compared with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay for samples drawn ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation (95.1% [95% CI 87.8–98.6] versus 85.2% [95% CI 75.6–92.1]; 93.8% [95% CI 86.0–97.9] versus 86.3% [95% CI 76.7–92.9]). Differences in sensitivity between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay and the Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.3% [95% CI 83.7–94.9] versus 95.2% [95% CI 89.8–98.2]) and Abbott ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.8% [95% CI 75.0–91.9] versus 87.3% [95% CI 78.0–93.8]) assays for samples drawn ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation were not significant.
Conclusions The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated high sensitivity in samples collected ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and comparable sensitivity to several commercially available comparator assays across multiple sites, supporting the use of this assay as a tool to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.
Ethical guidelines The study was conducted in accordance with the study protocol provided by Roche Diagnostics and in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All human samples utilised at the three study sites in Germany (Augsburg, Heidelberg, Berlin) were anonymised, frozen, residual samples, therefore no ethical approval or waiver was required in accordance with local legislation from ZEKO (Central Ethics Commission at the German Medical Association). A statement was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Landesärztekammer Bayern confirming that there are no objections to the coherent use of anonymised residual samples.
Research reporting guidelines Please see separate STARD checklist.
Data availability statement Qualified researchers may request access to individual patient level data through the clinical study data request platform (https://vivli.org/). Further details on Roche’s criteria for eligible studies are available here: https://vivli.org/members/ourmembers/. For further details on Roche’s Global Policy on the Sharing of Clinical Information and how to request access to related clinical study documents, see here: https://www.roche.com/research_and_development/who_we_are_how_we_work/clinical_trials/our_commitment_to_data_sharing.htm
Competing Interest Statement
Johannes Kolja Hegel: no conflicts of interest to disclose. Elena Riester: received speaker honorarium from Roche. Christopher M. Rank: employee of Roche Diagnostics GmbH. Florina Langen: employee of Roche Diagnostics GmbH. Tina Laengin: employee of Roche Diagnostics GmbH. Peter Findeisen: no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Roche Diagnostics GmbH (Mannheim, Germany).
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 study was conducted in accordance with the study protocol provided by Roche Diagnostics and in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All human samples utilised at the three study sites in Germany (Augsburg, Heidelberg, Berlin) were anonymised, frozen, residual samples, therefore no ethical approval or waiver was required in accordance with local legislation from ZEKO (Central Ethics Commission at the German Medical Association). A statement was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Landesärztekammer Bayern confirming that there are no objections to the coherent use of anonymised residual samples.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
Qualified researchers may request access to individual patient level data through the clinical study data request platform (https://vivli.org/). Further details on Roche's criteria for eligible studies are available here: https://vivli.org/members/ourmembers/. For further details on Roche's Global Policy on the Sharing of Clinical Information and how to request access to related clinical study documents, see here: https://www.roche.com/research_and_development/who_we_are_how_we_work/clinical_trials/our_commitment_to_data_sharing.htm
