Abstract
Objectives To assess the performance (sensitivity and specificity) of the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay across three clinical settings.
Methods Antibody testing was performed on three clinical cohorts of COVID-19 disease: hospitalised patients with PCR confirmation, hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis but negative PCR, and symptomatic healthcare workers (HCW’s). Pre-pandemic respiratory infection sera were tested as negative controls. The sensitivity of the assay was calculated at different time points (<5 days, 5-9 days, 10-14 days, 15-19 days, >20 days, >42 days), and compared between cohorts.
Results Performance of the Abbot Architect SARS-CoV-2 assay varied significantly between cohorts. For PCR confirmed hospitalised patients (n = 114), early sensitivity was low: <5 days: 44.4% (95%CI: 18.9%-73.3%), 5-9 days: 32.6% (95%CI, 20.5%-47.5%), 10-14 days: 65.2% (95% CI 44.9%-81.2%), 15-20 days: 66.7% (95% CI: 39.1%-86.2%) but by day 20, sensitivity was 100% (95%CI, 86.2-100%).
In contrast, 17 out of 114 symptomatic healthcare workers tested at >20 days had negative results, generating a sensitivity of 85.1% (95%CI, 77.4% - 90.5%). All pre-pandemic sera were negative, a specificity of 100%. Seroconversion rates were similar for PCR positive and PCR negative hospitalised cases.
Conclusions The sensitivity of the Abbot Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay increases over time, with sensitivity not peaking until 20 days post symptoms. Performance varied markedly by setting, with sensitivity significantly worse in symptomatic healthcare workers than in the hospitalised cohort. Clinicians, policymakers, and patients should be aware of the reduced sensitivity in this setting.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The DISCOVER study was funded by grants from the Southmead Hospital Charity and the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, University of Bristol
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:
Ethical approval for DISCOVER was approved by the HRA: REC (20/YH/0121). Ethical approval for the Pleural Investigation Database was approved by the HRA: REC (08/H0102/11). For the staff samples, ethical approval was waived by the hospital trust, as only anonymous data was included.
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
Data including time from symptom onset, patient status, and index cut off are available from the authors GitHub: https://github.com/gushamilton/discover_serology
